IBD & Intestinal Disorders

Key clinical point: Patients with an acute flare of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) required significantly more rescue biologics or cyclosporine. Additionally, IVMP significantly reduced rates of hypokalemia compared with intravenous hydrocortisone (IVHC).

Major finding: IVMP was associated with a greater requirement for rescue biologics or cyclosporine (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; P less than .001) and lower rates of hypokalemia (OR, 0.49; P = .005) than IVHC.

Study details: This was a multicenter cohort study of 359 patients hospitalized with an acute flare of IBD and treated with either IVMP 60 mg daily (n=129) or IVHC 100 mg 4 times daily (n=230).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Schauer C et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15535.

Key clinical point: Patients with an acute flare of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) required significantly more rescue biologics or cyclosporine. Additionally, IVMP significantly reduced rates of hypokalemia compared with intravenous hydrocortisone (IVHC).

Major finding: IVMP was associated with a greater requirement for rescue biologics or cyclosporine (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; P less than .001) and lower rates of hypokalemia (OR, 0.49; P = .005) than IVHC.

Study details: This was a multicenter cohort study of 359 patients hospitalized with an acute flare of IBD and treated with either IVMP 60 mg daily (n=129) or IVHC 100 mg 4 times daily (n=230).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Schauer C et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15535.

Key clinical point: Patients with an acute flare of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) required significantly more rescue biologics or cyclosporine. Additionally, IVMP significantly reduced rates of hypokalemia compared with intravenous hydrocortisone (IVHC).

Major finding: IVMP was associated with a greater requirement for rescue biologics or cyclosporine (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; P less than .001) and lower rates of hypokalemia (OR, 0.49; P = .005) than IVHC.

Study details: This was a multicenter cohort study of 359 patients hospitalized with an acute flare of IBD and treated with either IVMP 60 mg daily (n=129) or IVHC 100 mg 4 times daily (n=230).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Schauer C et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15535.

Key clinical point: A significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain in remission after discontinuation of antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) post clinical remission.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 34 months, incidence rate of relapse was 12% per patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-14) and the cumulative incidence of relapse was 50% (95% CI, 47-53) with 19%, 31%, 38%, 44%, and 48% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of follow-up.

Study details: Data come from an extension of the EVODIS study that included 1,055 patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who discontinued anti-TNF therapy after achieving clinical remission.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Some of the authors reported serving as a speaker, consultant, advisory member, and receiving research and/or education funding from multiple sources.

Source: Casanova MJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1111/apt.16361.

Key clinical point: A significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain in remission after discontinuation of antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) post clinical remission.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 34 months, incidence rate of relapse was 12% per patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-14) and the cumulative incidence of relapse was 50% (95% CI, 47-53) with 19%, 31%, 38%, 44%, and 48% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of follow-up.

Study details: Data come from an extension of the EVODIS study that included 1,055 patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who discontinued anti-TNF therapy after achieving clinical remission.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Some of the authors reported serving as a speaker, consultant, advisory member, and receiving research and/or education funding from multiple sources.

Source: Casanova MJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1111/apt.16361.

Key clinical point: A significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain in remission after discontinuation of antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) post clinical remission.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 34 months, incidence rate of relapse was 12% per patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-14) and the cumulative incidence of relapse was 50% (95% CI, 47-53) with 19%, 31%, 38%, 44%, and 48% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of follow-up.

Study details: Data come from an extension of the EVODIS study that included 1,055 patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who discontinued anti-TNF therapy after achieving clinical remission.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Some of the authors reported serving as a speaker, consultant, advisory member, and receiving research and/or education funding from multiple sources.

Source: Casanova MJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.1111/apt.16361.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab showed attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of BNT162b2 and adenovirus-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reassuringly, second dose of the vaccine led to seroconversion in most patients.

Major finding: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab following vaccination with a single dose of either BNT162b2 (fold change [FC], 0.29; P less than .0001) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC, 0.39; P less than .0001). After second vaccine dose, 85% of infliximab- and 86% of vedolizumab-treated patients seroconverted (P = .68).

Study details: Findings are from the CLARITY IBD study that included patients with IBD without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were treated with infliximab (n=865) or vedolizumab (n=428).

Disclosures: The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland), Biogen GmbH (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), and others. Some of the authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or financial or nonfinancial support from multiple sources.

Source: Kennedy NA et al. Gut. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324789.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab showed attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of BNT162b2 and adenovirus-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reassuringly, second dose of the vaccine led to seroconversion in most patients.

Major finding: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab following vaccination with a single dose of either BNT162b2 (fold change [FC], 0.29; P less than .0001) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC, 0.39; P less than .0001). After second vaccine dose, 85% of infliximab- and 86% of vedolizumab-treated patients seroconverted (P = .68).

Study details: Findings are from the CLARITY IBD study that included patients with IBD without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were treated with infliximab (n=865) or vedolizumab (n=428).

Disclosures: The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland), Biogen GmbH (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), and others. Some of the authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or financial or nonfinancial support from multiple sources.

Source: Kennedy NA et al. Gut. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324789.

Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab showed attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of BNT162b2 and adenovirus-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Reassuringly, second dose of the vaccine led to seroconversion in most patients.

Major finding: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab vs. vedolizumab following vaccination with a single dose of either BNT162b2 (fold change [FC], 0.29; P less than .0001) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC, 0.39; P less than .0001). After second vaccine dose, 85% of infliximab- and 86% of vedolizumab-treated patients seroconverted (P = .68).

Study details: Findings are from the CLARITY IBD study that included patients with IBD without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were treated with infliximab (n=865) or vedolizumab (n=428).

Disclosures: The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland), Biogen GmbH (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare (South Korea), and others. Some of the authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or financial or nonfinancial support from multiple sources.

Source: Kennedy NA et al. Gut. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324789.

For adult outpatients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, new guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association strongly recommend induction and maintenance therapy with anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents or ustekinumab over no treatment.

“Although [related] evidence supporting infliximab and adalimumab was moderate certainty, the evidence for certolizumab pegol was low certainty,” wrote Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and his associates, on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee in Gastroenterology. Vedolizumab received a conditional recommendation based on less robust evidence for induction in this setting.

Outcomes in Crohn’s disease have improved, likely “because of earlier diagnosis, increasing use of biologics, escalation or alteration of therapy based on disease severity, and endoscopic management of colorectal cancer,” Dr. Feuerstein and his associates wrote.

This update reflects these changes, strongly recommending biologic monotherapy over thiopurine monotherapy for induction. It also suggests “early induction with a biologic, with or without an immunomodulator, rather than delaying their use until after failure of 5-aminosalicylates and/or corticosteroids.” For the latter assessment, the guidelines noted that some studies were open label (which increases risk of bias) and that upfront combination therapy with a biologic and an immunomodulator could sometimes lead to overtreatment. Nonetheless, studies shown associations between the step-up approach and “a potential risk of harm from disease progression related to inadequate disease therapy.”

The guidelines also recommend that patients who have never received biologic drugs receive induction therapy with infliximab, adalimumab, or ustekinumab, rather than certolizumab pegol. This strong recommendation reflects the findings of a network meta-analysis conducted by the AGA in which certolizumab pegol was least effective, with no evidence for clear differences in efficacy among infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis is a type of study that enables experts to compare therapies indirectly when head-to-head trials are lacking.

For patients who are naive to both biologics and immunomodulators, the guidelines suggest combination treatment with infliximab or adalimumab plus a thiopurine rather than monotherapy with either biologic. Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, no recommendation is made regarding combination therapy with ustekinumab or vedolizumab.

For patients who have received but never responded to anti-TNF-alpha therapy (so-called primary nonresponders), ustekinumab is strongly recommended, and vedolizumab is conditionally recommended. For patients who initially responded to infliximab and then lost their response (secondary nonresponders), adalimumab and ustekinumab are strongly recommended, while vedolizumab receives another conditional recommendation.

For patients with moderate to severe luminal disease, induction and maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab are recommended over no treatment. Thiopurine monotherapy is suggested over no treatment for maintenance of remission, but not for induction. For methotrexate, subcutaneous or intramuscular monotherapy is suggested over no treatment. The sole available trial on oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) was negative, and “it is not clear if a higher dose would have been more effective,” according to the guidelines. They strongly recommend against using 5-aminosalicytes or sulfasalazine because of lack of efficacy for maintaining remission and suggest not using natalizumab because of the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Corticosteroids are considered preferable to no treatment for induction but not for maintenance.

For patients with fistulizing disease, infliximab has “the most robust evidence” and receives a strong recommendation for induction and maintenance, while adalimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab receive conditional recommendations. “In contrast, evidence suggests certolizumab pegol may not be effective for induction of fistula remission,” the guidelines state. For patients with perianal disease with an active fistula but no abscess, combining biologics with antibiotics is strongly recommended over biologic monotherapy.

The guidelines define moderate to severe Crohn’s disease as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 or higher, the typical cutoff used in clinical trials. The recommendations apply to outpatient management, but in most cases would also apply to inpatients.

An expert commentary accompanying the guidelines praises their “rigorous methods” based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Edith Y. Ho, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her associates also laud the “innovative methods” that were used to compare treatments and assess data quality. In addition to the network meta-analysis, the guidelines set an a priori minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score of 10% for risk of treatment failure versus placebo. This led to more clinically relevant guidance, such as the conditional recommendation for vedolizumab in luminal disease since this drug did not meet the MCID threshold. Finally, the commentators emphasized that the guidelines are meant to facilitate, not dictate, treatment decisions: “Choice of therapies and treatment strategies will continue to rely on clinical judgment as well, and will continue to be informed by patient-specific values and preferences.”

The AGA Institute was the sole source of funding. Four coauthors disclosed ties to Celgene, Takeda, Pendopharm, Merck Canada, Guardant Health, Ferring, and AbbVie. Dr. Feurstein and the other guidelines coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Some authors on the editorial disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen, but the remaining had no conflicts to disclose.

For adult outpatients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, new guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association strongly recommend induction and maintenance therapy with anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents or ustekinumab over no treatment.

“Although [related] evidence supporting infliximab and adalimumab was moderate certainty, the evidence for certolizumab pegol was low certainty,” wrote Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and his associates, on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee in Gastroenterology. Vedolizumab received a conditional recommendation based on less robust evidence for induction in this setting.

Outcomes in Crohn’s disease have improved, likely “because of earlier diagnosis, increasing use of biologics, escalation or alteration of therapy based on disease severity, and endoscopic management of colorectal cancer,” Dr. Feuerstein and his associates wrote.

This update reflects these changes, strongly recommending biologic monotherapy over thiopurine monotherapy for induction. It also suggests “early induction with a biologic, with or without an immunomodulator, rather than delaying their use until after failure of 5-aminosalicylates and/or corticosteroids.” For the latter assessment, the guidelines noted that some studies were open label (which increases risk of bias) and that upfront combination therapy with a biologic and an immunomodulator could sometimes lead to overtreatment. Nonetheless, studies shown associations between the step-up approach and “a potential risk of harm from disease progression related to inadequate disease therapy.”

The guidelines also recommend that patients who have never received biologic drugs receive induction therapy with infliximab, adalimumab, or ustekinumab, rather than certolizumab pegol. This strong recommendation reflects the findings of a network meta-analysis conducted by the AGA in which certolizumab pegol was least effective, with no evidence for clear differences in efficacy among infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis is a type of study that enables experts to compare therapies indirectly when head-to-head trials are lacking.

For patients who are naive to both biologics and immunomodulators, the guidelines suggest combination treatment with infliximab or adalimumab plus a thiopurine rather than monotherapy with either biologic. Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, no recommendation is made regarding combination therapy with ustekinumab or vedolizumab.

For patients who have received but never responded to anti-TNF-alpha therapy (so-called primary nonresponders), ustekinumab is strongly recommended, and vedolizumab is conditionally recommended. For patients who initially responded to infliximab and then lost their response (secondary nonresponders), adalimumab and ustekinumab are strongly recommended, while vedolizumab receives another conditional recommendation.

For patients with moderate to severe luminal disease, induction and maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab are recommended over no treatment. Thiopurine monotherapy is suggested over no treatment for maintenance of remission, but not for induction. For methotrexate, subcutaneous or intramuscular monotherapy is suggested over no treatment. The sole available trial on oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) was negative, and “it is not clear if a higher dose would have been more effective,” according to the guidelines. They strongly recommend against using 5-aminosalicytes or sulfasalazine because of lack of efficacy for maintaining remission and suggest not using natalizumab because of the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Corticosteroids are considered preferable to no treatment for induction but not for maintenance.

For patients with fistulizing disease, infliximab has “the most robust evidence” and receives a strong recommendation for induction and maintenance, while adalimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab receive conditional recommendations. “In contrast, evidence suggests certolizumab pegol may not be effective for induction of fistula remission,” the guidelines state. For patients with perianal disease with an active fistula but no abscess, combining biologics with antibiotics is strongly recommended over biologic monotherapy.

The guidelines define moderate to severe Crohn’s disease as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 or higher, the typical cutoff used in clinical trials. The recommendations apply to outpatient management, but in most cases would also apply to inpatients.

An expert commentary accompanying the guidelines praises their “rigorous methods” based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Edith Y. Ho, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her associates also laud the “innovative methods” that were used to compare treatments and assess data quality. In addition to the network meta-analysis, the guidelines set an a priori minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score of 10% for risk of treatment failure versus placebo. This led to more clinically relevant guidance, such as the conditional recommendation for vedolizumab in luminal disease since this drug did not meet the MCID threshold. Finally, the commentators emphasized that the guidelines are meant to facilitate, not dictate, treatment decisions: “Choice of therapies and treatment strategies will continue to rely on clinical judgment as well, and will continue to be informed by patient-specific values and preferences.”

The AGA Institute was the sole source of funding. Four coauthors disclosed ties to Celgene, Takeda, Pendopharm, Merck Canada, Guardant Health, Ferring, and AbbVie. Dr. Feurstein and the other guidelines coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Some authors on the editorial disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen, but the remaining had no conflicts to disclose.

For adult outpatients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, new guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association strongly recommend induction and maintenance therapy with anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents or ustekinumab over no treatment.

“Although [related] evidence supporting infliximab and adalimumab was moderate certainty, the evidence for certolizumab pegol was low certainty,” wrote Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and his associates, on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee in Gastroenterology. Vedolizumab received a conditional recommendation based on less robust evidence for induction in this setting.

Outcomes in Crohn’s disease have improved, likely “because of earlier diagnosis, increasing use of biologics, escalation or alteration of therapy based on disease severity, and endoscopic management of colorectal cancer,” Dr. Feuerstein and his associates wrote.

This update reflects these changes, strongly recommending biologic monotherapy over thiopurine monotherapy for induction. It also suggests “early induction with a biologic, with or without an immunomodulator, rather than delaying their use until after failure of 5-aminosalicylates and/or corticosteroids.” For the latter assessment, the guidelines noted that some studies were open label (which increases risk of bias) and that upfront combination therapy with a biologic and an immunomodulator could sometimes lead to overtreatment. Nonetheless, studies shown associations between the step-up approach and “a potential risk of harm from disease progression related to inadequate disease therapy.”

The guidelines also recommend that patients who have never received biologic drugs receive induction therapy with infliximab, adalimumab, or ustekinumab, rather than certolizumab pegol. This strong recommendation reflects the findings of a network meta-analysis conducted by the AGA in which certolizumab pegol was least effective, with no evidence for clear differences in efficacy among infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis is a type of study that enables experts to compare therapies indirectly when head-to-head trials are lacking.

For patients who are naive to both biologics and immunomodulators, the guidelines suggest combination treatment with infliximab or adalimumab plus a thiopurine rather than monotherapy with either biologic. Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, no recommendation is made regarding combination therapy with ustekinumab or vedolizumab.

For patients who have received but never responded to anti-TNF-alpha therapy (so-called primary nonresponders), ustekinumab is strongly recommended, and vedolizumab is conditionally recommended. For patients who initially responded to infliximab and then lost their response (secondary nonresponders), adalimumab and ustekinumab are strongly recommended, while vedolizumab receives another conditional recommendation.

For patients with moderate to severe luminal disease, induction and maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab are recommended over no treatment. Thiopurine monotherapy is suggested over no treatment for maintenance of remission, but not for induction. For methotrexate, subcutaneous or intramuscular monotherapy is suggested over no treatment. The sole available trial on oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) was negative, and “it is not clear if a higher dose would have been more effective,” according to the guidelines. They strongly recommend against using 5-aminosalicytes or sulfasalazine because of lack of efficacy for maintaining remission and suggest not using natalizumab because of the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Corticosteroids are considered preferable to no treatment for induction but not for maintenance.

For patients with fistulizing disease, infliximab has “the most robust evidence” and receives a strong recommendation for induction and maintenance, while adalimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab receive conditional recommendations. “In contrast, evidence suggests certolizumab pegol may not be effective for induction of fistula remission,” the guidelines state. For patients with perianal disease with an active fistula but no abscess, combining biologics with antibiotics is strongly recommended over biologic monotherapy.

The guidelines define moderate to severe Crohn’s disease as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 or higher, the typical cutoff used in clinical trials. The recommendations apply to outpatient management, but in most cases would also apply to inpatients.

An expert commentary accompanying the guidelines praises their “rigorous methods” based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Edith Y. Ho, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her associates also laud the “innovative methods” that were used to compare treatments and assess data quality. In addition to the network meta-analysis, the guidelines set an a priori minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score of 10% for risk of treatment failure versus placebo. This led to more clinically relevant guidance, such as the conditional recommendation for vedolizumab in luminal disease since this drug did not meet the MCID threshold. Finally, the commentators emphasized that the guidelines are meant to facilitate, not dictate, treatment decisions: “Choice of therapies and treatment strategies will continue to rely on clinical judgment as well, and will continue to be informed by patient-specific values and preferences.”

The AGA Institute was the sole source of funding. Four coauthors disclosed ties to Celgene, Takeda, Pendopharm, Merck Canada, Guardant Health, Ferring, and AbbVie. Dr. Feurstein and the other guidelines coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Some authors on the editorial disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen, but the remaining had no conflicts to disclose.

Ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen) appears superior to vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) on multiple measures of response and remission among patients with Crohn’s disease who failed at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, in a retrospective analysis.

Of patients taking ustekinumab, a higher proportion (51%) met the primary endpoint of corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 54. In the vedolizumab group, only 41% achieved the same outcome.

“Failure to anti-TNF therapy is a major concern in Crohn’s disease,” Anthony Buisson, MD, PhD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, University Hospital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France, said during the Digestive Disease Week 2021 virtual meeting.

Dr. Buisson estimated that 15% of patients with Crohn’s disease experience primary failure from an anti-TNF agent. Also, only slightly more than one-third (37%) remain in clinical remission at 1 year.

With that in mind, Dr. Buisson and his colleagues conducted the VENUS study to evaluate outcomes between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. These two biologic agents are indicated for Crohn’s disease and feature different mechanisms of action, compared with anti-TNF agents.

They assessed 312 adults with Crohn’s disease from two patient cohorts in France. All participants failed prior treatment with at least one anti-TNF agent, including approximately 20% who experienced a primary nonresponse.

The retrospective analysis included 224 patients treated with ustekinumab and another 88 with vedolizumab between July 2014 and May 2020. The two groups were comparable based on a propensity analysis. Other medications were allowed at the physician’s discretion.
 

Nonresponders and other outcomes

“Vedolizumab patients were more likely to be primary nonresponders than ustekinumab patients,” Dr. Buisson said. This group included 6% of patients taking ustekinumab versus 14% of those taking vedolizumab.

In contrast, regarding secondary loss of response, “we did not observe any [significant] difference between two groups,” he added.

The investigators defined corticosteroid-free remission as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 150 at week 54. They also assessed “deep remission” at 14 weeks, which was defined as meeting corticosteroid-free remission and a fecal calprotectin of less than 100 mcg/g.

They found that 26% of patients who received ustekinumab met the deep remission criteria versus 4% of those who received vedolizumab.

Dr. Buisson and colleagues also looked at time to drug escalation. A Kaplan Meier curve revealed that patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to be escalated, compared with those taking ustekinumab (hazard ratio, 1.35).

Furthermore, those treated with vedolizumab also featured a higher risk for drug discontinuation because of therapeutic failure (HR, 1.53).

“This is an interesting study comparing ustekinumab with vedolizumab in Crohn’s disease patients who have failed prior anti-TNF therapy,” Farah Monzur, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. “Although the researchers assessed corticosteroid-free remission and ‘deep remission,’ ” she said, endoscopic and histologic remission were not studied, “which have become the new targets to achieve.”

“Even so, this study adds to the literature, aiming to position these newer biologics in the treatment algorithm,” added Dr. Monzur, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of ambulatory GI at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine.
 

Superior in subgroup analyses as well

“No subgroups were identified where vedolizumab was more effective than ustekinumab,” Dr. Buisson said. “In contrast, ustekinumab was more effective in five subgroups.”

The subgroups favoring ustekinumab included those patients not taking steroids at baseline, with no prior bowel resection, with a noncomplicated phenotype, with upper gastrointestinal involvement, and older than 35 years of age.

The retrospective analysis design was a limitation. The long follow-up and large sample size were strengths.

The authors concluded that ustekinumab was more effective to achieve early and long-term efficacy than vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease who previously failed to anti-TNF agents.

“However, these data should be confirmed in a head-to-head randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Buisson said.

Dr. Buisson disclosed that he is a consultant for Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Monzur has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com..

Ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen) appears superior to vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) on multiple measures of response and remission among patients with Crohn’s disease who failed at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, in a retrospective analysis.

Of patients taking ustekinumab, a higher proportion (51%) met the primary endpoint of corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 54. In the vedolizumab group, only 41% achieved the same outcome.

“Failure to anti-TNF therapy is a major concern in Crohn’s disease,” Anthony Buisson, MD, PhD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, University Hospital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France, said during the Digestive Disease Week 2021 virtual meeting.

Dr. Buisson estimated that 15% of patients with Crohn’s disease experience primary failure from an anti-TNF agent. Also, only slightly more than one-third (37%) remain in clinical remission at 1 year.

With that in mind, Dr. Buisson and his colleagues conducted the VENUS study to evaluate outcomes between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. These two biologic agents are indicated for Crohn’s disease and feature different mechanisms of action, compared with anti-TNF agents.

They assessed 312 adults with Crohn’s disease from two patient cohorts in France. All participants failed prior treatment with at least one anti-TNF agent, including approximately 20% who experienced a primary nonresponse.

The retrospective analysis included 224 patients treated with ustekinumab and another 88 with vedolizumab between July 2014 and May 2020. The two groups were comparable based on a propensity analysis. Other medications were allowed at the physician’s discretion.
 

Nonresponders and other outcomes

“Vedolizumab patients were more likely to be primary nonresponders than ustekinumab patients,” Dr. Buisson said. This group included 6% of patients taking ustekinumab versus 14% of those taking vedolizumab.

In contrast, regarding secondary loss of response, “we did not observe any [significant] difference between two groups,” he added.

The investigators defined corticosteroid-free remission as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 150 at week 54. They also assessed “deep remission” at 14 weeks, which was defined as meeting corticosteroid-free remission and a fecal calprotectin of less than 100 mcg/g.

They found that 26% of patients who received ustekinumab met the deep remission criteria versus 4% of those who received vedolizumab.

Dr. Buisson and colleagues also looked at time to drug escalation. A Kaplan Meier curve revealed that patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to be escalated, compared with those taking ustekinumab (hazard ratio, 1.35).

Furthermore, those treated with vedolizumab also featured a higher risk for drug discontinuation because of therapeutic failure (HR, 1.53).

“This is an interesting study comparing ustekinumab with vedolizumab in Crohn’s disease patients who have failed prior anti-TNF therapy,” Farah Monzur, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. “Although the researchers assessed corticosteroid-free remission and ‘deep remission,’ ” she said, endoscopic and histologic remission were not studied, “which have become the new targets to achieve.”

“Even so, this study adds to the literature, aiming to position these newer biologics in the treatment algorithm,” added Dr. Monzur, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of ambulatory GI at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine.
 

Superior in subgroup analyses as well

“No subgroups were identified where vedolizumab was more effective than ustekinumab,” Dr. Buisson said. “In contrast, ustekinumab was more effective in five subgroups.”

The subgroups favoring ustekinumab included those patients not taking steroids at baseline, with no prior bowel resection, with a noncomplicated phenotype, with upper gastrointestinal involvement, and older than 35 years of age.

The retrospective analysis design was a limitation. The long follow-up and large sample size were strengths.

The authors concluded that ustekinumab was more effective to achieve early and long-term efficacy than vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease who previously failed to anti-TNF agents.

“However, these data should be confirmed in a head-to-head randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Buisson said.

Dr. Buisson disclosed that he is a consultant for Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Monzur has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com..

Ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen) appears superior to vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) on multiple measures of response and remission among patients with Crohn’s disease who failed at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, in a retrospective analysis.

Of patients taking ustekinumab, a higher proportion (51%) met the primary endpoint of corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 54. In the vedolizumab group, only 41% achieved the same outcome.

“Failure to anti-TNF therapy is a major concern in Crohn’s disease,” Anthony Buisson, MD, PhD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, University Hospital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France, said during the Digestive Disease Week 2021 virtual meeting.

Dr. Buisson estimated that 15% of patients with Crohn’s disease experience primary failure from an anti-TNF agent. Also, only slightly more than one-third (37%) remain in clinical remission at 1 year.

With that in mind, Dr. Buisson and his colleagues conducted the VENUS study to evaluate outcomes between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. These two biologic agents are indicated for Crohn’s disease and feature different mechanisms of action, compared with anti-TNF agents.

They assessed 312 adults with Crohn’s disease from two patient cohorts in France. All participants failed prior treatment with at least one anti-TNF agent, including approximately 20% who experienced a primary nonresponse.

The retrospective analysis included 224 patients treated with ustekinumab and another 88 with vedolizumab between July 2014 and May 2020. The two groups were comparable based on a propensity analysis. Other medications were allowed at the physician’s discretion.
 

Nonresponders and other outcomes

“Vedolizumab patients were more likely to be primary nonresponders than ustekinumab patients,” Dr. Buisson said. This group included 6% of patients taking ustekinumab versus 14% of those taking vedolizumab.

In contrast, regarding secondary loss of response, “we did not observe any [significant] difference between two groups,” he added.

The investigators defined corticosteroid-free remission as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 150 at week 54. They also assessed “deep remission” at 14 weeks, which was defined as meeting corticosteroid-free remission and a fecal calprotectin of less than 100 mcg/g.

They found that 26% of patients who received ustekinumab met the deep remission criteria versus 4% of those who received vedolizumab.

Dr. Buisson and colleagues also looked at time to drug escalation. A Kaplan Meier curve revealed that patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to be escalated, compared with those taking ustekinumab (hazard ratio, 1.35).

Furthermore, those treated with vedolizumab also featured a higher risk for drug discontinuation because of therapeutic failure (HR, 1.53).

“This is an interesting study comparing ustekinumab with vedolizumab in Crohn’s disease patients who have failed prior anti-TNF therapy,” Farah Monzur, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. “Although the researchers assessed corticosteroid-free remission and ‘deep remission,’ ” she said, endoscopic and histologic remission were not studied, “which have become the new targets to achieve.”

“Even so, this study adds to the literature, aiming to position these newer biologics in the treatment algorithm,” added Dr. Monzur, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of ambulatory GI at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine.
 

Superior in subgroup analyses as well

“No subgroups were identified where vedolizumab was more effective than ustekinumab,” Dr. Buisson said. “In contrast, ustekinumab was more effective in five subgroups.”

The subgroups favoring ustekinumab included those patients not taking steroids at baseline, with no prior bowel resection, with a noncomplicated phenotype, with upper gastrointestinal involvement, and older than 35 years of age.

The retrospective analysis design was a limitation. The long follow-up and large sample size were strengths.

The authors concluded that ustekinumab was more effective to achieve early and long-term efficacy than vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease who previously failed to anti-TNF agents.

“However, these data should be confirmed in a head-to-head randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Buisson said.

Dr. Buisson disclosed that he is a consultant for Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Monzur has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com..

A “smart toilet” in development uses artificial intelligence (AI) to scan stool for consistency and presence of blood – and early evidence suggests it is more accurate than patient self-reporting, a study reveals.

The remote, automated, real-time analysis and reporting increase the likelihood of physicians detecting gastrointestinal issues earlier, investigators reported.

In a proof-of-concept study, the smart toilet was 85% accurate in categorizing stool consistency as loose, normal, or constipated. The findings were presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“This study highlights a very innovative and practical tool that could have major implications for patients and clinicians alike,” Andrea Shin, MD, who was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Stool form or consistency and signs of bleeding are some of the most important pieces of clinical history when it comes to GI or bowel symptoms,” added Dr. Shin, assistant professor of medicine in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Image analysis

The researchers tested their AI algorithm on 3,328 images. They assessed photos from the Internet and some submitted anonymously by participants in the study.

Two gastroenterologists also rated a subset of 552 images. The physicians showed “satisfactory agreement” on interrater reliability (the extent to which two or more “raters” [for example, observers, examiners] agree), the investigators noted.

The smart toilet also was 76% accurate for gross blood detection.

“It’s objective and more accurate,” study author Sonia Grego, PhD, said in an interview. In contrast to asking patients to keep a bowel movement diary or recall the frequency and consistency of their stool over time, “the system does it for you,” she added.

“Our technology – by automating the image acquisition – removes the burden of having to track your pattern for weeks or months,” added Dr. Grego, founding director of the Duke Smart Toilet Lab at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Information provided by patients “can have a big impact on decision-making,” Dr. Shin said. “For example, if I am talking to an individual who suffers from irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], I commonly ask them about how loose or watery and hard or formed their stool is, because this information gives me clues as to the underlying problems that may be driving their symptoms.”

Dr. Shin agreed it can be challenging for people to know what is important to report to their doctor. “This tool has the potential to relieve patient burden and facilitate communication between a patient and their clinician. It’s a great example of how technology can be leveraged to enhance care.”
 

Working behind the scenes

Together with gastroenterologist Deborah Anne Fisher, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Duke, Dr. Grego and colleagues devised a prototype that positions the image analyzer in the pipes behind the toilet. So the analysis is done post flush.

“We are experts of toilets and toilet technology,” Dr. Grego said. “We have learned that people really don’t like to see anything weird around the toilet bowl.”

The smart toilet system is designed for multiple users in a residential or commercial setting. The technology could be used in hospitals or long-term care facilities, for example. A fingerprint scanner on the flush mechanism tracks each individual user.
 

Mixed reactions

Dr. Grego gets a range of reactions when she tells people she is developing smart toilet technology.

“Friends and family laugh about the concept of the smart toilet,” she said, “so all the possible jokes that have been done on poops, we know.”

In fact, the researchers also are collecting the jokes they hear. “We’re being very systematic.”

In contrast, gastroenterologists who learn of the technology in development are more enthusiastic, Dr. Grego said. “There is such a need for removing the uncertainty of the patient recall about bowel movement frequency and appearance.

“We are seeking to expand through collaboration with additional GI doctors. We want to develop a more advanced prototype and do further validation studies,” Dr. Grego said.
 

Digital health tool

There is an aversion among patients to handling stool “or even talking about it,” Dr. Grego said. Colleagues tell her that people are more willing to provide a blood sample, which requires a needle, than a stool sample.

“But a lot of health data is there [in the stool],” she added. “We think this will empower a lot of research as well as consumer data gathering.”

For example, Dr. Grego envisions pharmaceutical companies using the technology to detect or monitor any changes in stool or gut health based on a treatment in development during clinical trials.

Furthermore, the technology might empower health-conscious consumers who want to track their own gut health. “This technology will be a whole new entry in the digital health toolkit,” Dr. Grego said.

Although not included in the research presented at this year’s DDW, the developers plan to add a sampling capability. Biochemic analysis of stool samples could provide “metabolically relevant information,” including stool biomarkers and microbiome composition.

“We have demonstrated it in the laboratory. It will be part of the technology when developed into a product,” Dr. Grego said.

This proof-of-concept study “is the first step in a path we are aggressively pursuing,” Dr. Grego said. She estimated it will take about 12-18 months to develop a prototype for use with patients. “We hope to move to a product soon after that.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing future iterations of this tool,” Dr. Shin said. “It could have a role in monitoring important GI diseases and disorders, including IBS and inflammatory bowel disease, or even for the detection of ‘alarm symptoms’ that shouldn’t be ignored.

“I could even see it having a role in preventative health in the future,” Dr. Shin added. 

The technology has been licensed to the spin-off company Coprata to develop the product further.

“We hope to have an impact on people’s health very soon,” Dr. Grego said.  

Duke University funded the study. Dr. Grego holds a management position at Coprata. Dr. Shin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A “smart toilet” in development uses artificial intelligence (AI) to scan stool for consistency and presence of blood – and early evidence suggests it is more accurate than patient self-reporting, a study reveals.

The remote, automated, real-time analysis and reporting increase the likelihood of physicians detecting gastrointestinal issues earlier, investigators reported.

In a proof-of-concept study, the smart toilet was 85% accurate in categorizing stool consistency as loose, normal, or constipated. The findings were presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“This study highlights a very innovative and practical tool that could have major implications for patients and clinicians alike,” Andrea Shin, MD, who was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Stool form or consistency and signs of bleeding are some of the most important pieces of clinical history when it comes to GI or bowel symptoms,” added Dr. Shin, assistant professor of medicine in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Image analysis

The researchers tested their AI algorithm on 3,328 images. They assessed photos from the Internet and some submitted anonymously by participants in the study.

Two gastroenterologists also rated a subset of 552 images. The physicians showed “satisfactory agreement” on interrater reliability (the extent to which two or more “raters” [for example, observers, examiners] agree), the investigators noted.

The smart toilet also was 76% accurate for gross blood detection.

“It’s objective and more accurate,” study author Sonia Grego, PhD, said in an interview. In contrast to asking patients to keep a bowel movement diary or recall the frequency and consistency of their stool over time, “the system does it for you,” she added.

“Our technology – by automating the image acquisition – removes the burden of having to track your pattern for weeks or months,” added Dr. Grego, founding director of the Duke Smart Toilet Lab at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Information provided by patients “can have a big impact on decision-making,” Dr. Shin said. “For example, if I am talking to an individual who suffers from irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], I commonly ask them about how loose or watery and hard or formed their stool is, because this information gives me clues as to the underlying problems that may be driving their symptoms.”

Dr. Shin agreed it can be challenging for people to know what is important to report to their doctor. “This tool has the potential to relieve patient burden and facilitate communication between a patient and their clinician. It’s a great example of how technology can be leveraged to enhance care.”
 

Working behind the scenes

Together with gastroenterologist Deborah Anne Fisher, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Duke, Dr. Grego and colleagues devised a prototype that positions the image analyzer in the pipes behind the toilet. So the analysis is done post flush.

“We are experts of toilets and toilet technology,” Dr. Grego said. “We have learned that people really don’t like to see anything weird around the toilet bowl.”

The smart toilet system is designed for multiple users in a residential or commercial setting. The technology could be used in hospitals or long-term care facilities, for example. A fingerprint scanner on the flush mechanism tracks each individual user.
 

Mixed reactions

Dr. Grego gets a range of reactions when she tells people she is developing smart toilet technology.

“Friends and family laugh about the concept of the smart toilet,” she said, “so all the possible jokes that have been done on poops, we know.”

In fact, the researchers also are collecting the jokes they hear. “We’re being very systematic.”

In contrast, gastroenterologists who learn of the technology in development are more enthusiastic, Dr. Grego said. “There is such a need for removing the uncertainty of the patient recall about bowel movement frequency and appearance.

“We are seeking to expand through collaboration with additional GI doctors. We want to develop a more advanced prototype and do further validation studies,” Dr. Grego said.
 

Digital health tool

There is an aversion among patients to handling stool “or even talking about it,” Dr. Grego said. Colleagues tell her that people are more willing to provide a blood sample, which requires a needle, than a stool sample.

“But a lot of health data is there [in the stool],” she added. “We think this will empower a lot of research as well as consumer data gathering.”

For example, Dr. Grego envisions pharmaceutical companies using the technology to detect or monitor any changes in stool or gut health based on a treatment in development during clinical trials.

Furthermore, the technology might empower health-conscious consumers who want to track their own gut health. “This technology will be a whole new entry in the digital health toolkit,” Dr. Grego said.

Although not included in the research presented at this year’s DDW, the developers plan to add a sampling capability. Biochemic analysis of stool samples could provide “metabolically relevant information,” including stool biomarkers and microbiome composition.

“We have demonstrated it in the laboratory. It will be part of the technology when developed into a product,” Dr. Grego said.

This proof-of-concept study “is the first step in a path we are aggressively pursuing,” Dr. Grego said. She estimated it will take about 12-18 months to develop a prototype for use with patients. “We hope to move to a product soon after that.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing future iterations of this tool,” Dr. Shin said. “It could have a role in monitoring important GI diseases and disorders, including IBS and inflammatory bowel disease, or even for the detection of ‘alarm symptoms’ that shouldn’t be ignored.

“I could even see it having a role in preventative health in the future,” Dr. Shin added. 

The technology has been licensed to the spin-off company Coprata to develop the product further.

“We hope to have an impact on people’s health very soon,” Dr. Grego said.  

Duke University funded the study. Dr. Grego holds a management position at Coprata. Dr. Shin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A “smart toilet” in development uses artificial intelligence (AI) to scan stool for consistency and presence of blood – and early evidence suggests it is more accurate than patient self-reporting, a study reveals.

The remote, automated, real-time analysis and reporting increase the likelihood of physicians detecting gastrointestinal issues earlier, investigators reported.

In a proof-of-concept study, the smart toilet was 85% accurate in categorizing stool consistency as loose, normal, or constipated. The findings were presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“This study highlights a very innovative and practical tool that could have major implications for patients and clinicians alike,” Andrea Shin, MD, who was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Stool form or consistency and signs of bleeding are some of the most important pieces of clinical history when it comes to GI or bowel symptoms,” added Dr. Shin, assistant professor of medicine in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Image analysis

The researchers tested their AI algorithm on 3,328 images. They assessed photos from the Internet and some submitted anonymously by participants in the study.

Two gastroenterologists also rated a subset of 552 images. The physicians showed “satisfactory agreement” on interrater reliability (the extent to which two or more “raters” [for example, observers, examiners] agree), the investigators noted.

The smart toilet also was 76% accurate for gross blood detection.

“It’s objective and more accurate,” study author Sonia Grego, PhD, said in an interview. In contrast to asking patients to keep a bowel movement diary or recall the frequency and consistency of their stool over time, “the system does it for you,” she added.

“Our technology – by automating the image acquisition – removes the burden of having to track your pattern for weeks or months,” added Dr. Grego, founding director of the Duke Smart Toilet Lab at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Information provided by patients “can have a big impact on decision-making,” Dr. Shin said. “For example, if I am talking to an individual who suffers from irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], I commonly ask them about how loose or watery and hard or formed their stool is, because this information gives me clues as to the underlying problems that may be driving their symptoms.”

Dr. Shin agreed it can be challenging for people to know what is important to report to their doctor. “This tool has the potential to relieve patient burden and facilitate communication between a patient and their clinician. It’s a great example of how technology can be leveraged to enhance care.”
 

Working behind the scenes

Together with gastroenterologist Deborah Anne Fisher, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Duke, Dr. Grego and colleagues devised a prototype that positions the image analyzer in the pipes behind the toilet. So the analysis is done post flush.

“We are experts of toilets and toilet technology,” Dr. Grego said. “We have learned that people really don’t like to see anything weird around the toilet bowl.”

The smart toilet system is designed for multiple users in a residential or commercial setting. The technology could be used in hospitals or long-term care facilities, for example. A fingerprint scanner on the flush mechanism tracks each individual user.
 

Mixed reactions

Dr. Grego gets a range of reactions when she tells people she is developing smart toilet technology.

“Friends and family laugh about the concept of the smart toilet,” she said, “so all the possible jokes that have been done on poops, we know.”

In fact, the researchers also are collecting the jokes they hear. “We’re being very systematic.”

In contrast, gastroenterologists who learn of the technology in development are more enthusiastic, Dr. Grego said. “There is such a need for removing the uncertainty of the patient recall about bowel movement frequency and appearance.

“We are seeking to expand through collaboration with additional GI doctors. We want to develop a more advanced prototype and do further validation studies,” Dr. Grego said.
 

Digital health tool

There is an aversion among patients to handling stool “or even talking about it,” Dr. Grego said. Colleagues tell her that people are more willing to provide a blood sample, which requires a needle, than a stool sample.

“But a lot of health data is there [in the stool],” she added. “We think this will empower a lot of research as well as consumer data gathering.”

For example, Dr. Grego envisions pharmaceutical companies using the technology to detect or monitor any changes in stool or gut health based on a treatment in development during clinical trials.

Furthermore, the technology might empower health-conscious consumers who want to track their own gut health. “This technology will be a whole new entry in the digital health toolkit,” Dr. Grego said.

Although not included in the research presented at this year’s DDW, the developers plan to add a sampling capability. Biochemic analysis of stool samples could provide “metabolically relevant information,” including stool biomarkers and microbiome composition.

“We have demonstrated it in the laboratory. It will be part of the technology when developed into a product,” Dr. Grego said.

This proof-of-concept study “is the first step in a path we are aggressively pursuing,” Dr. Grego said. She estimated it will take about 12-18 months to develop a prototype for use with patients. “We hope to move to a product soon after that.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing future iterations of this tool,” Dr. Shin said. “It could have a role in monitoring important GI diseases and disorders, including IBS and inflammatory bowel disease, or even for the detection of ‘alarm symptoms’ that shouldn’t be ignored.

“I could even see it having a role in preventative health in the future,” Dr. Shin added. 

The technology has been licensed to the spin-off company Coprata to develop the product further.

“We hope to have an impact on people’s health very soon,” Dr. Grego said.  

Duke University funded the study. Dr. Grego holds a management position at Coprata. Dr. Shin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For biologic-naive adults with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, treatment with adalimumab or ustekinumab leads to similar outcomes, according to results of the head-to-head SEAVUE trial.

When lead author Bruce E. Sands, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, compared treatment arms, patients had similar rates of clinical remission at one year. All major secondary endpoints, such as endoscopic remission, were comparable, as were safety profiles, Dr. Sands reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“From my perspective, this is an important study,” Dr. Sands wrote in a virtual chat following his presentation. “We need more head-to-head studies!”

Results from the SEAVUE trial come almost 2 years after Dr. Sands reported findings of another head-to-head IBD trial: VARSITY, which demonstrated the superiority of vedolizumab over adalimumab among patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The multicenter, double-blinded SEAVUE trial involved 386 patients with biologic-naive Crohn’s disease who had failed corticosteroids or immunomodulators. All patients had Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores ranging from 220 to 450 and had at least one ulcer detected at baseline ileocolonoscopy.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monotherapy with either subcutaneous adalimumab (citrate-free; 160 mg at baseline, 70 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks) or ustekinumab, which was given first intravenously at a dose of 6 mg/kg then subcutaneously at 90 mg every 8 weeks.

The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined by a CDAI score less than 150. Major secondary endpoints included clinical response, corticosteroid-free remission, endoscopic remission, remission in patient-reported CDAI components, and clinical remission at week 16.

Results were statistically similar across all endpoints, with clinical remission at 1 year occurring in 64.9% and 61.0% of patients receiving ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .417).

“Both treatments demonstrated rapid onset of action and robust endoscopy results,” Dr. Sands noted during his presentation; he reported comparable rates of endoscopic remission, at 28.5% and 30.7% for ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .631).

Among secondary endpoints, ustekinumab demonstrated some superiority, with greater maintenance of clinical response at week 52 among patients with response at week 16 (88.6% vs. 78.0%; P = .016), greater reduction in liquid/soft stools in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–19.9 vs. –16.2; P = .004), and greater reduction in sum number of liquid/soft stools and abdominal pain scores in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–29.6 vs. –25.1; P = .013).

Safety metrics were similar between groups, and consistent with previous experience. Although the adalimumab group had a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events, this trend was not statistically significant (11.3% vs. 6.3%; P value not provided).
 

Don’t ignore discontinuation rates

Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU and a clinician at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, commended the SEAVUE trial for its head-to-head design, which is a first for biologics in Crohn’s disease.

“With newer drugs, there’s a critical need for head-to-head studies for us to understand where to position a lot of these agents,” he said in an interview. “[T]his was a good undifferentiated group to understand what’s the first biologic you should use in a patient with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. The primary, major take-home is that [ustekinumab and adalimumab] are similarly effective.”

When asked about the slight superiority in minor secondary endpoints associated with ustekinumab, Dr. Axelrad suggested that rates of discontinuation deserve more attention.

“For me, maybe the major focus would be on the number of patients who stopped treatment,” Dr. Axelrad said, noting a higher rate of discontinuation in the adalimumab group. “Although that was just numerical, that to me is actually more important than [the minor secondary endpoints].” He also highlighted the lower injection burden associated with ustekinumab, which is given every 8 weeks, compared with every 2 weeks for adalimumab.

Ultimately, however, it’s unlikely that treatment sequencing will depend on these finer points, Dr. Axelrad suggested, and will instead come down to finances, especially with adalimumab biosimilars on the horizon, which may be the most cost-effective.

“A lot of the decision-making of where to position [ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease] is going to come down to the payer,” Dr. Axelrad said. “If there was a clear signal, providers such as myself would have a better leg to stand on, like we saw with VARSITY, where vedolizumab was clearly superior to adalimumab on multiple endpoints. We didn’t see that sort of robust signal here.”

The SEAVUE trial was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Sands disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed previous consulting fees from Janssen and research support from BioFire.

For biologic-naive adults with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, treatment with adalimumab or ustekinumab leads to similar outcomes, according to results of the head-to-head SEAVUE trial.

When lead author Bruce E. Sands, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, compared treatment arms, patients had similar rates of clinical remission at one year. All major secondary endpoints, such as endoscopic remission, were comparable, as were safety profiles, Dr. Sands reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“From my perspective, this is an important study,” Dr. Sands wrote in a virtual chat following his presentation. “We need more head-to-head studies!”

Results from the SEAVUE trial come almost 2 years after Dr. Sands reported findings of another head-to-head IBD trial: VARSITY, which demonstrated the superiority of vedolizumab over adalimumab among patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The multicenter, double-blinded SEAVUE trial involved 386 patients with biologic-naive Crohn’s disease who had failed corticosteroids or immunomodulators. All patients had Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores ranging from 220 to 450 and had at least one ulcer detected at baseline ileocolonoscopy.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monotherapy with either subcutaneous adalimumab (citrate-free; 160 mg at baseline, 70 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks) or ustekinumab, which was given first intravenously at a dose of 6 mg/kg then subcutaneously at 90 mg every 8 weeks.

The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined by a CDAI score less than 150. Major secondary endpoints included clinical response, corticosteroid-free remission, endoscopic remission, remission in patient-reported CDAI components, and clinical remission at week 16.

Results were statistically similar across all endpoints, with clinical remission at 1 year occurring in 64.9% and 61.0% of patients receiving ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .417).

“Both treatments demonstrated rapid onset of action and robust endoscopy results,” Dr. Sands noted during his presentation; he reported comparable rates of endoscopic remission, at 28.5% and 30.7% for ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .631).

Among secondary endpoints, ustekinumab demonstrated some superiority, with greater maintenance of clinical response at week 52 among patients with response at week 16 (88.6% vs. 78.0%; P = .016), greater reduction in liquid/soft stools in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–19.9 vs. –16.2; P = .004), and greater reduction in sum number of liquid/soft stools and abdominal pain scores in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–29.6 vs. –25.1; P = .013).

Safety metrics were similar between groups, and consistent with previous experience. Although the adalimumab group had a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events, this trend was not statistically significant (11.3% vs. 6.3%; P value not provided).
 

Don’t ignore discontinuation rates

Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU and a clinician at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, commended the SEAVUE trial for its head-to-head design, which is a first for biologics in Crohn’s disease.

“With newer drugs, there’s a critical need for head-to-head studies for us to understand where to position a lot of these agents,” he said in an interview. “[T]his was a good undifferentiated group to understand what’s the first biologic you should use in a patient with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. The primary, major take-home is that [ustekinumab and adalimumab] are similarly effective.”

When asked about the slight superiority in minor secondary endpoints associated with ustekinumab, Dr. Axelrad suggested that rates of discontinuation deserve more attention.

“For me, maybe the major focus would be on the number of patients who stopped treatment,” Dr. Axelrad said, noting a higher rate of discontinuation in the adalimumab group. “Although that was just numerical, that to me is actually more important than [the minor secondary endpoints].” He also highlighted the lower injection burden associated with ustekinumab, which is given every 8 weeks, compared with every 2 weeks for adalimumab.

Ultimately, however, it’s unlikely that treatment sequencing will depend on these finer points, Dr. Axelrad suggested, and will instead come down to finances, especially with adalimumab biosimilars on the horizon, which may be the most cost-effective.

“A lot of the decision-making of where to position [ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease] is going to come down to the payer,” Dr. Axelrad said. “If there was a clear signal, providers such as myself would have a better leg to stand on, like we saw with VARSITY, where vedolizumab was clearly superior to adalimumab on multiple endpoints. We didn’t see that sort of robust signal here.”

The SEAVUE trial was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Sands disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed previous consulting fees from Janssen and research support from BioFire.

For biologic-naive adults with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, treatment with adalimumab or ustekinumab leads to similar outcomes, according to results of the head-to-head SEAVUE trial.

When lead author Bruce E. Sands, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, compared treatment arms, patients had similar rates of clinical remission at one year. All major secondary endpoints, such as endoscopic remission, were comparable, as were safety profiles, Dr. Sands reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“From my perspective, this is an important study,” Dr. Sands wrote in a virtual chat following his presentation. “We need more head-to-head studies!”

Results from the SEAVUE trial come almost 2 years after Dr. Sands reported findings of another head-to-head IBD trial: VARSITY, which demonstrated the superiority of vedolizumab over adalimumab among patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The multicenter, double-blinded SEAVUE trial involved 386 patients with biologic-naive Crohn’s disease who had failed corticosteroids or immunomodulators. All patients had Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores ranging from 220 to 450 and had at least one ulcer detected at baseline ileocolonoscopy.

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monotherapy with either subcutaneous adalimumab (citrate-free; 160 mg at baseline, 70 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks) or ustekinumab, which was given first intravenously at a dose of 6 mg/kg then subcutaneously at 90 mg every 8 weeks.

The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, defined by a CDAI score less than 150. Major secondary endpoints included clinical response, corticosteroid-free remission, endoscopic remission, remission in patient-reported CDAI components, and clinical remission at week 16.

Results were statistically similar across all endpoints, with clinical remission at 1 year occurring in 64.9% and 61.0% of patients receiving ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .417).

“Both treatments demonstrated rapid onset of action and robust endoscopy results,” Dr. Sands noted during his presentation; he reported comparable rates of endoscopic remission, at 28.5% and 30.7% for ustekinumab and adalimumab, respectively (P = .631).

Among secondary endpoints, ustekinumab demonstrated some superiority, with greater maintenance of clinical response at week 52 among patients with response at week 16 (88.6% vs. 78.0%; P = .016), greater reduction in liquid/soft stools in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–19.9 vs. –16.2; P = .004), and greater reduction in sum number of liquid/soft stools and abdominal pain scores in prior 7 days from baseline to week 52 (–29.6 vs. –25.1; P = .013).

Safety metrics were similar between groups, and consistent with previous experience. Although the adalimumab group had a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events, this trend was not statistically significant (11.3% vs. 6.3%; P value not provided).
 

Don’t ignore discontinuation rates

Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU and a clinician at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, commended the SEAVUE trial for its head-to-head design, which is a first for biologics in Crohn’s disease.

“With newer drugs, there’s a critical need for head-to-head studies for us to understand where to position a lot of these agents,” he said in an interview. “[T]his was a good undifferentiated group to understand what’s the first biologic you should use in a patient with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. The primary, major take-home is that [ustekinumab and adalimumab] are similarly effective.”

When asked about the slight superiority in minor secondary endpoints associated with ustekinumab, Dr. Axelrad suggested that rates of discontinuation deserve more attention.

“For me, maybe the major focus would be on the number of patients who stopped treatment,” Dr. Axelrad said, noting a higher rate of discontinuation in the adalimumab group. “Although that was just numerical, that to me is actually more important than [the minor secondary endpoints].” He also highlighted the lower injection burden associated with ustekinumab, which is given every 8 weeks, compared with every 2 weeks for adalimumab.

Ultimately, however, it’s unlikely that treatment sequencing will depend on these finer points, Dr. Axelrad suggested, and will instead come down to finances, especially with adalimumab biosimilars on the horizon, which may be the most cost-effective.

“A lot of the decision-making of where to position [ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease] is going to come down to the payer,” Dr. Axelrad said. “If there was a clear signal, providers such as myself would have a better leg to stand on, like we saw with VARSITY, where vedolizumab was clearly superior to adalimumab on multiple endpoints. We didn’t see that sort of robust signal here.”

The SEAVUE trial was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Sands disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed previous consulting fees from Janssen and research support from BioFire.

SER-109, an oral microbiome therapeutic, safely protects against Clostridioides difficile recurrence for up to 24 weeks, according to a recent phase 3 trial. Three days of treatment with purified Firmicutes spores reduced risk of recurrence by 54%, suggesting a sustained, clinically meaningful response, according to a multicenter study presented at this year’s Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“Antibiotics targeted against C. difficile bacteria are necessary but insufficient to achieve a durable clinical response because they have no effect on C. difficile spores that germinate within a disrupted microbiome,” the investigators reported at the meeting.

“The manufacturing processes for SER-109 are designed to inactivate potential pathogens, while enriching for beneficial Firmicutes spores, which play a central role in inhibiting the cycle of C. difficile,” said Louis Y. Korman, MD, a gastroenterologist in Washington, who was lead author.
 

Extended data from ECOSPOR-III

The ECOSPOR-III trial involved 182 patients with at least three episodes of C. difficile infection in the previous 12 months. Patients underwent 10-21 days of antibiotic therapy with fidaxomicin or vancomycin to resolve symptoms before they were then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SER-109 (four capsules daily for 3 days) or placebo, with stratification by specific antibiotic and patient age (threshold of 65 years).

The primary objectives were safety and efficacy at 8 weeks. These results, which were previously reported at ACG 2020, showed a 68% relative risk reduction in the SER-109 group, and favorable safety data. The findings presented at DDW added to those earlier ones by providing safety and efficacy data extending to week 24. At this time point, patients treated with SER-109 had a 54% relative risk reduction in C. difficile recurrence. Recurrence rates were 21.3% and 47.3% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P less than .001).

Patients 65 years and older benefited the most from SER-109 therapy, based on a relative risk reduction of 56% (P less than .001), versus a 49% relative risk reduction (lacking statistical significance) for patients younger than 65 years (P = .093). The specific antibiotic therapy patients received also appeared to impact outcomes. Patients treated with fidaxomicin had a 73% relative risk reduction (P = .009), compared with 48% for vancomycin (P = .006). Safety profiles were similar between study arms.

“By enriching for Firmicutes spores, SER-109 achieves high efficacy, while mitigating risk of transmitting infectious agents and represents a major paradigm shift in the clinical management of patients with recurrent C. difficile infection,” the investigators concluded, noting that “an open-label study for patients with recurrent C. difficile infection is currently enrolling.”
 

Microbiome restoration therapies

According to Sahil Khanna, MBBS, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., these findings “advance the field” because they show a sustained response. “We know that microbiome restoration therapies help restore colonization resistance,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview, noting that they offer benefits comparable to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) without the downsides.

SER-109, an oral microbiome therapeutic, safely protects against Clostridioides difficile recurrence for up to 24 weeks, according to a recent phase 3 trial. Three days of treatment with purified Firmicutes spores reduced risk of recurrence by 54%, suggesting a sustained, clinically meaningful response, according to a multicenter study presented at this year’s Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“Antibiotics targeted against C. difficile bacteria are necessary but insufficient to achieve a durable clinical response because they have no effect on C. difficile spores that germinate within a disrupted microbiome,” the investigators reported at the meeting.

“The manufacturing processes for SER-109 are designed to inactivate potential pathogens, while enriching for beneficial Firmicutes spores, which play a central role in inhibiting the cycle of C. difficile,” said Louis Y. Korman, MD, a gastroenterologist in Washington, who was lead author.
 

Extended data from ECOSPOR-III

The ECOSPOR-III trial involved 182 patients with at least three episodes of C. difficile infection in the previous 12 months. Patients underwent 10-21 days of antibiotic therapy with fidaxomicin or vancomycin to resolve symptoms before they were then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SER-109 (four capsules daily for 3 days) or placebo, with stratification by specific antibiotic and patient age (threshold of 65 years).

The primary objectives were safety and efficacy at 8 weeks. These results, which were previously reported at ACG 2020, showed a 68% relative risk reduction in the SER-109 group, and favorable safety data. The findings presented at DDW added to those earlier ones by providing safety and efficacy data extending to week 24. At this time point, patients treated with SER-109 had a 54% relative risk reduction in C. difficile recurrence. Recurrence rates were 21.3% and 47.3% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P less than .001).

Patients 65 years and older benefited the most from SER-109 therapy, based on a relative risk reduction of 56% (P less than .001), versus a 49% relative risk reduction (lacking statistical significance) for patients younger than 65 years (P = .093). The specific antibiotic therapy patients received also appeared to impact outcomes. Patients treated with fidaxomicin had a 73% relative risk reduction (P = .009), compared with 48% for vancomycin (P = .006). Safety profiles were similar between study arms.

“By enriching for Firmicutes spores, SER-109 achieves high efficacy, while mitigating risk of transmitting infectious agents and represents a major paradigm shift in the clinical management of patients with recurrent C. difficile infection,” the investigators concluded, noting that “an open-label study for patients with recurrent C. difficile infection is currently enrolling.”
 

Microbiome restoration therapies

According to Sahil Khanna, MBBS, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., these findings “advance the field” because they show a sustained response. “We know that microbiome restoration therapies help restore colonization resistance,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview, noting that they offer benefits comparable to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) without the downsides.

SER-109, an oral microbiome therapeutic, safely protects against Clostridioides difficile recurrence for up to 24 weeks, according to a recent phase 3 trial. Three days of treatment with purified Firmicutes spores reduced risk of recurrence by 54%, suggesting a sustained, clinically meaningful response, according to a multicenter study presented at this year’s Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

“Antibiotics targeted against C. difficile bacteria are necessary but insufficient to achieve a durable clinical response because they have no effect on C. difficile spores that germinate within a disrupted microbiome,” the investigators reported at the meeting.

“The manufacturing processes for SER-109 are designed to inactivate potential pathogens, while enriching for beneficial Firmicutes spores, which play a central role in inhibiting the cycle of C. difficile,” said Louis Y. Korman, MD, a gastroenterologist in Washington, who was lead author.
 

Extended data from ECOSPOR-III

The ECOSPOR-III trial involved 182 patients with at least three episodes of C. difficile infection in the previous 12 months. Patients underwent 10-21 days of antibiotic therapy with fidaxomicin or vancomycin to resolve symptoms before they were then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SER-109 (four capsules daily for 3 days) or placebo, with stratification by specific antibiotic and patient age (threshold of 65 years).

The primary objectives were safety and efficacy at 8 weeks. These results, which were previously reported at ACG 2020, showed a 68% relative risk reduction in the SER-109 group, and favorable safety data. The findings presented at DDW added to those earlier ones by providing safety and efficacy data extending to week 24. At this time point, patients treated with SER-109 had a 54% relative risk reduction in C. difficile recurrence. Recurrence rates were 21.3% and 47.3% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P less than .001).

Patients 65 years and older benefited the most from SER-109 therapy, based on a relative risk reduction of 56% (P less than .001), versus a 49% relative risk reduction (lacking statistical significance) for patients younger than 65 years (P = .093). The specific antibiotic therapy patients received also appeared to impact outcomes. Patients treated with fidaxomicin had a 73% relative risk reduction (P = .009), compared with 48% for vancomycin (P = .006). Safety profiles were similar between study arms.

“By enriching for Firmicutes spores, SER-109 achieves high efficacy, while mitigating risk of transmitting infectious agents and represents a major paradigm shift in the clinical management of patients with recurrent C. difficile infection,” the investigators concluded, noting that “an open-label study for patients with recurrent C. difficile infection is currently enrolling.”
 

Microbiome restoration therapies

According to Sahil Khanna, MBBS, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., these findings “advance the field” because they show a sustained response. “We know that microbiome restoration therapies help restore colonization resistance,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview, noting that they offer benefits comparable to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) without the downsides.

Irritable bowel syndrome symptoms improved among patients who endured a prolonged COVID-19 lockdown in Argentina, a finding that was unexpected yet reaffirms the gut-brain connection in this gastrointestinal disorder, according to a coauthor of a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) reported improvements in disease severity and symptoms during the lockdown that were significant in comparison with the prepandemic period, according to Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a lead author on the study.

The proportion of patients with severe IBS dropped from about 50% to 30%, accompanied by decreases in global and individual symptom scores, according to data presented at the meeting.

Investigators had assumed that IBS symptoms would worsen, fueled by new stresses and pressures related to a nationwide lockdown in Argentina that started in March 19, 2020, and didn’t fully end until November.

Now, the hypothesis has changed, according to Dr. Stefanolo, a physician in the neurogastroenterology and motility section at Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“We think that probably just staying at home in a more relaxed way, and in a more controlled environment, could have improved those symptoms,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.
 

Impact of lifestyle factors?

This reported decrease in overall severity and symptoms associated with IBS during the pandemic lockdown is an “interesting phenomenon” that deserves further study, said Purna C. Kashyap, MBBS, professor of medicine, physiology, and biomedical engineering at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

Diet, exercise, and other lifestyle factors such as spending more time with family could be contributing to the improvement in symptoms, said Dr. Kashyap, who was not involved in the study.

“A follow-up survey which includes these additional factors could help ascertain why there was an improvement in symptoms and could help with developing effective treatment strategies,” Dr. Kashyap said.

A more detailed follow-up survey is definitely warranted, Dr. Stefanolo said, particularly as Argentina faces new and sweeping pandemic-related restrictions caused by a second-wave COVID-19 surge that now includes more than 30,000 new cases per day.

On May 21, Argentina entered a strict 9-day confinement period as President Alberto Fernández said the country was facing its “worst moment” of the pandemic to date.

Although the circumstances are very unfortunate, worsening pandemic conditions in Argentina are nonetheless a “perfect scenario” to explore in more detail how external stress burden impacts IBS symptoms, said Dr. Stefanolo.
 

Study results

To study the impact of the 2020 mandatory lockdown on gut-brain axis symptomatology in IBS patients, Dr. Stefanolo and coauthors assessed a total of 129 patients with IBS-diarrhea or mixed bowel habits subtype. The mean age of participants was 54 years and 78% were female.

Patients were assessed by online survey or phone interview using the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Scale (IBS-SS), Likert scales for IBS symptoms, and the Bristol Stool Scale, along with other measures of mood and comorbidities.

The proportion of patients with severe IBS dropped from 50% (65 patients) in the prepandemic period to 30% (39 patients) during the lockdown, Dr. Stefanolo and coauthors reported at the virtual DDW meeting. Similarly, mean IBS-SS scores dropped from 278.54 to 212.36 during lockdown, translating into a difference of 65.9 points.

Patients reported improvements in global IBS symptoms, pain, and distention. Stool consistency was also improved, with an average decrease on the Bristol scale of 2 points, according to the report.

Similar improvements from the prepandemic period were observed in anxiety and somatization scores, as well as in symptoms of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.

By contrast, headache and pyrosis and/or regurgitation symptoms increased from the prepandemic period, possibly because of weight gain, according to Dr. Stefanolo who said that about 60% of patients reported weight gain during the lockdown.
 

Lifestyle advice

The patients in this study were being seen at a tertiary care center, so they tended to have more severe disease than what would be seen in general clinical practice, according to Dr. Stefanolo. Because of that, he advised caution in extrapolating these results to a broader patient population.

Nevertheless, this study does suggest the potential for lifestyle interventions that could make a difference for the average IBS patient, he said.

“It reinforces that outside stress has something to do with it, and that food maybe has something to do with it,” he said. “I think that giving that advice – try to be more relaxed, and maybe control the quality or the type of food you have – could be great to improve ... those symptoms, maybe.”

The study authors reported no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Kashyap reported relationships with Novome Biotechnologies, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, and Pendulum.

Help your patients better understand IBS and symptoms by sharing AGA patient education at www.gastro.org/IBS.

This article was update May 27, 2021.

Irritable bowel syndrome symptoms improved among patients who endured a prolonged COVID-19 lockdown in Argentina, a finding that was unexpected yet reaffirms the gut-brain connection in this gastrointestinal disorder, according to a coauthor of a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) reported improvements in disease severity and symptoms during the lockdown that were significant in comparison with the prepandemic period, according to Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a lead author on the study.

The proportion of patients with severe IBS dropped from about 50% to 30%, accompanied by decreases in global and individual symptom scores, according to data presented at the meeting.

Investigators had assumed that IBS symptoms would worsen, fueled by new stresses and pressures related to a nationwide lockdown in Argentina that started in March 19, 2020, and didn’t fully end until November.

Now, the hypothesis has changed, according to Dr. Stefanolo, a physician in the neurogastroenterology and motility section at Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“We think that probably just staying at home in a more relaxed way, and in a more controlled environment, could have improved those symptoms,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.
 

Impact of lifestyle factors?

This reported decrease in overall severity and symptoms associated with IBS during the pandemic lockdown is an “interesting phenomenon” that deserves further study, said Purna C. Kashyap, MBBS, professor of medicine, physiology, and biomedical engineering at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

Diet, exercise, and other lifestyle factors such as spending more time with family could be contributing to the improvement in symptoms, said Dr. Kashyap, who was not involved in the study.

“A follow-up survey which includes these additional factors could help ascertain why there was an improvement in symptoms and could help with developing effective treatment strategies,” Dr. Kashyap said.

A more detailed follow-up survey is definitely warranted, Dr. Stefanolo said, particularly as Argentina faces new and sweeping pandemic-related restrictions caused by a second-wave COVID-19 surge that now includes more than 30,000 new cases per day.

On May 21, Argentina entered a strict 9-day confinement period as President Alberto Fernández said the country was facing its “worst moment” of the pandemic to date.

Although the circumstances are very unfortunate, worsening pandemic conditions in Argentina are nonetheless a “perfect scenario” to explore in more detail how external stress burden impacts IBS symptoms, said Dr. Stefanolo.
 

Study results

To study the impact of the 2020 mandatory lockdown on gut-brain axis symptomatology in IBS patients, Dr. Stefanolo and coauthors assessed a total of 129 patients with IBS-diarrhea or mixed bowel habits subtype. The mean age of participants was 54 years and 78% were female.

Patients were assessed by online survey or phone interview using the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Scale (IBS-SS), Likert scales for IBS symptoms, and the Bristol Stool Scale, along with other measures of mood and comorbidities.

The proportion of patients with severe IBS dropped from 50% (65 patients) in the prepandemic period to 30% (39 patients) during the lockdown, Dr. Stefanolo and coauthors reported at the virtual DDW meeting. Similarly, mean IBS-SS scores dropped from 278.54 to 212.36 during lockdown, translating into a difference of 65.9 points.

Patients reported improvements in global IBS symptoms, pain, and distention. Stool consistency was also improved, with an average decrease on the Bristol scale of 2 points, according to the report.

Similar improvements from the prepandemic period were observed in anxiety and somatization scores, as well as in symptoms of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.

By contrast, headache and pyrosis and/or regurgitation symptoms increased from the prepandemic period, possibly because of weight gain, according to Dr. Stefanolo who said that about 60% of patients reported weight gain during the lockdown.
 

Lifestyle advice

The patients in this study were being seen at a tertiary care center, so they tended to have more severe disease than what would be seen in general clinical practice, according to Dr. Stefanolo. Because of that, he advised caution in extrapolating these results to a broader patient population.

Nevertheless, this study does suggest the potential for lifestyle interventions that could make a difference for the average IBS patient, he said.

“It reinforces that outside stress has something to do with it, and that food maybe has something to do with it,” he said. “I think that giving that advice – try to be more relaxed, and maybe control the quality or the type of food you have – could be great to improve ... those symptoms, maybe.”

The study authors reported no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Kashyap reported relationships with Novome Biotechnologies, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, and Pendulum.

Help your patients better understand IBS and symptoms by sharing AGA patient education at www.gastro.org/IBS.

This article was update May 27, 2021.

Irritable bowel syndrome symptoms improved among patients who endured a prolonged COVID-19 lockdown in Argentina, a finding that was unexpected yet reaffirms the gut-brain connection in this gastrointestinal disorder, according to a coauthor of a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) reported improvements in disease severity and symptoms during the lockdown that were significant in comparison with the prepandemic period, according to Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a lead author on the study.

The proportion of patients with severe IBS dropped from about 50% to 30%, accompanied by decreases in global and individual symptom scores, according to data presented at the meeting.

Investigators had assumed that IBS symptoms would worsen, fueled by new stresses and pressures related to a nationwide lockdown in Argentina that started in March 19, 2020, and didn’t fully end until November.

Now, the hypothesis has changed, according to Dr. Stefanolo, a physician in the neurogastroenterology and motility section at Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“We think that probably just staying at home in a more relaxed way, and in a more controlled environment, could have improved those symptoms,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.
 

Impact of lifestyle factors?

This reported decrease in overall severity and symptoms associated with IBS during the pandemic lockdown is an “interesting phenomenon” that deserves further study, said Purna C. Kashyap, MBBS, professor of medicine, physiology, and biomedical engineering at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

Diet, exercise, and other lifestyle factors such as spending more time with family could be contributing to the improvement in symptoms, said Dr. Kashyap, who was not involved in the study.

“A follow-up survey which includes these additional factors could help ascertain why there was an improvement in symptoms and could help with developing effective treatment strategies,” Dr. Kashyap said.

A more detailed follow-up survey is definitely warranted, Dr. Stefanolo said, particularly as Argentina faces new and sweeping pandemic-related restrictions caused by a second-wave COVID-19 surge that now includes more than 30,000 new cases per day.

On May 21, Argentina entered a strict 9-day confinement period as President Alberto Fernández said the country was facing its “worst moment” of the pandemic to date.

Although the circumstances are very unfortunate, worsening pandemic conditions in Argentina are nonetheless a “perfect scenario” to explore in more detail how external stress burden impacts IBS symptoms, said Dr. Stefanolo.
 

Study results

To study the impact of the 2020 mandatory lockdown on gut-brain axis symptomatology in IBS patients, Dr. Stefanolo and coauthors assessed a total of 129 patients with IBS-diarrhea or mixed bowel habits subtype. The mean age of participants was 54 years and 78% were female.

Patients were assessed by online survey or phone interview using the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Scale (IBS-SS), Likert scales for IBS symptoms, and the Bristol Stool Scale, along with other measures of mood and comorbidities.

The proportion of patients with severe IBS dropped from 50% (65 patients) in the prepandemic period to 30% (39 patients) during the lockdown, Dr. Stefanolo and coauthors reported at the virtual DDW meeting. Similarly, mean IBS-SS scores dropped from 278.54 to 212.36 during lockdown, translating into a difference of 65.9 points.

Patients reported improvements in global IBS symptoms, pain, and distention. Stool consistency was also improved, with an average decrease on the Bristol scale of 2 points, according to the report.

Similar improvements from the prepandemic period were observed in anxiety and somatization scores, as well as in symptoms of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.

By contrast, headache and pyrosis and/or regurgitation symptoms increased from the prepandemic period, possibly because of weight gain, according to Dr. Stefanolo who said that about 60% of patients reported weight gain during the lockdown.
 

Lifestyle advice

The patients in this study were being seen at a tertiary care center, so they tended to have more severe disease than what would be seen in general clinical practice, according to Dr. Stefanolo. Because of that, he advised caution in extrapolating these results to a broader patient population.

Nevertheless, this study does suggest the potential for lifestyle interventions that could make a difference for the average IBS patient, he said.

“It reinforces that outside stress has something to do with it, and that food maybe has something to do with it,” he said. “I think that giving that advice – try to be more relaxed, and maybe control the quality or the type of food you have – could be great to improve ... those symptoms, maybe.”

The study authors reported no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Kashyap reported relationships with Novome Biotechnologies, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, and Pendulum.

Help your patients better understand IBS and symptoms by sharing AGA patient education at www.gastro.org/IBS.

This article was update May 27, 2021.