Category Archives: inflammatory bowel disease

IBD Shorts February 2020

Posted on by

Cost of IBD Care is Increasing. From Healio Gastro: Chronic inflammatory disease expenditures nearly double over last 2 decades Reference: Click B, et al. Poster 22. Presented at: Crohn’s and Colitis Congress; Jan. 23-25, 2020; Austin, Texas

An excerpt from Healio Gastro summary: [Using] the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative database of health care use and expenditure data collected since 1998…The researchers assessed total annual, outpatient, inpatient, emergency and pharmacy expenditures in both patients with IBD (n = 641) and RA (n = 641). They used three separate time periods – 1998-2001, 2006-2009 and 2012-2015 –to compare expenditures over time…

Median per-patient annual health care expenditure in patients with IBD was $6,570 compared with $4,010 in patients with RA across all years of the study. Total annual spending increased approximately 2.2 times (95% CI, 1.6-3; P < .01) over the study period and was 36% higher in IBD than RA (P = 0.01).

Pharmaceutical spending increased more than fourfold (95% CI, 3.2-6.1; P < .01) and became the largest cost category (44% total). However, inpatient expenses in IBD decreased 40% over the study period.

My take: While the cost has increased, these new treatments are improving outcomes.  With the emergence of biosimilars, there may be improvement in pharmaceutical spending.

More on Proactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (pTDM) Being Helpful: SR Fernandes et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26: 263-70, editorial 271-2.  In this study, a prospective group of patients (n=56) undergoing pTDM were compared with a historical control group (n=149). pTDM had less frequent surgery (9% vs. 21%) and higher rates of mucosal healing (73% vs. 39%).  Treatment escalation was 3 times more common with pTDM than in the control group.

Increased risk of VTE in IBD patients: JD McCurdy et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izaa002

Abstract Link: Risk of Venous Thromboembolism After Hospital Discharge in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Population-based Study

In a population-based study from Ontario, the authors analyzed a total of 81,900 IBD discharges (62,848 nonsurgical and 19,052 surgical) which were matched to non-IBD controls… The cumulative incidence of VTE at 12 months after discharge was 2.3% for nonsurgical IBD patients and 1.6% for surgical IBD patients…Nonsurgical IBD patients and surgical patients with ulcerative colitis are 1.7-fold more likely to develop postdischarge VTE than non-IBD patients.

IBD and Immune-Mediated Diseases

Posted on by

J Burisch et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2704-12.  In this nationwide cohort from Denmark with 14,377 adult patients with IBD (median age 45.8 yrs) and 71,885 controls; immune-mediated diseases (IMID) were present in 22.5% of those with IBD.

Most common IMID:

  • psoriasis
  • asthma
  • type 1 diabetes
  • iridocyclitis

Other IMID:

  • multiple sclerosis
  • pyoderma gangrenosum
  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • ankylosing spondylitis,
  • celiac
  • primary scelorsing cholangitis,
  • primary biliary cholangitis
  • sarcoidosis
  • Graves’ disease

Findings:

  • Patients receiving infliximab were at a reduced risk of developing an IMID with aOR of 0.52 for Crohn’s disease (CD) and 0.47 for Ulcerative Colitis. (UC)
  • 80.3% of IMID were noted prior to onset of IBD
  • The presence of IMID was associated with an increased risk of surgery in patients with CD with aOR of 2.30 but not in patients with UC

My take: About 1 in 4 patients with IBD have at least 1 other immune-mediated disease.  The presence of an immune-mediated disease is associated with a higher likelihood of needing a biologic therapy and with surgery in patients with Crohn’s disease. In patients with numerous immune-mediated diseases, one needs to consider the possibility of other etiologies (eg. CTLA4 defiency)

Related blog posts:

Saint Jerome (not far from Montreal)

This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition

Real-World Vedolizumab: Better Than Expected

Posted on by

Two recent studies indicate that vedolizumab is performing better than expected in the “real world.”

  • JL Koliani-Pace et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019; 25: 1854-61
  • DM Faleck et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2497-2505.

In the first study, the researchers used 2 data sets (VICTORY cohort, n=1087, & the Truven cohort, n=2574)  to compare vedolizumab in two separate eras; the early era was May 2014-June 2015  and the later era was July 2015-June 2017.

Key findings:

  • Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) in the VICTORY cohort during the second era had better clinical remission rates: 40% vs 31% and better mucosal healing rates 58% vs 42%
  • Later era patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in the Truven database had lower rates of IBD-related hospitalization (22.4% vs. 9.6%) and surgery (17.2% vs. 9.4%)
  • In the later era, patients were more likely to be biologic naive.

This study indicates that, overall, patients treated in the first era were likely more sick and less likely to respond to vedolizumab.  The authors’ note that this could be a ‘warehouse effect’ whereby “patients treated within the first year of a drug’s approval are likely representative of a select group of high-risk patients who are refractory to currently available therapies and are being warehoused on ineffective and undesirable therapies (ie. chronic steroid) to bridge them through until a promising agent is approved by the FDA.”

In the second study, the authors retrospectively examined 650 patients with CD and 437 with UC who were treated between 2014-16.  Patients who had a more recent diagnosis of CD (≤2 years) fared better than those with more long-standing disease.

Key findings:

  • Early-stage CD vs. later-stage CD clinical remission rates: 38% vs 23%
  • Early-stage CD vs. later-stage CD with corticosteroid-free remission: 43% vs 14%
  • Early-stage CD vs. later-stage CD with endoscopic remission: 29% vs. 13%
  • UC disease duration did not associate with response to vedolizumab

My take: Taken together, these studies indicate that vedolizumab in the real world may outperform the results of the landmark studies which helped garner FDA approval.  In patients who are less sick and have not been considered refractory to multiple treatments, response rates to vedolizumab are higher.

Related blog posts:

Video for Patients: Benefits and Risks of IBD Treatment & Risks of Untreated IBD

Posted on by

A recent study (NE Newman, KL Williams, BJ Zikmunde-Fisher, J Adler. JPGN 2020;70: e33-36) highlights work to communicate the benefits and risks of the treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) along with the risks of untreated IBD.  “We developed a simple video aid to illustrate competing risks associated with medications and underling disease in context of inflammatory bowel disease…Those who viewed the video aid had more realistic perceptions than those who did not view it.”

Here is a link to the ~13 minute online video: IBD: Risk of Disease and Treatments

Overall, the presentation is very helpful and thoughtful.  I think this would be an excellent overview for families.  For practitioners, a few points that could benefit from some nuance are noted below some screenshots.  It is worth stating that the authors had started this project a few years ago and some of the points below are related to more information that has emerged.

In the section of treatment benefits (above), the presentation suggests that thiopurines (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine) and methotrexate both are effective in about 50%; this is probably an overestimate; in addition, methotrexate as monotherapy is definitely less effective (if effective at all) for ulcerative colitis .  Also, it would be worthwhile to indicate that anti-TNF monotherapy with therapeutic drug monitoring may help achieve similar benefits as dual therapy.

In the section of colon cancer, the authors provide useful data that current treatments lower this risk substantially.  It is notable that more recent reports suggest that there have been improvements in the rates of colon cancer associated with IBD.

Overall, the section on lymphoma is very good.

In the section on other complications, the presentation suggests that there may be impaired wound-healing with anti-TNFs.  I think this risk is overstated in this slide. Also, I think the risk of severe infection with thiopurines is a little bit higher than stated; though, this can be mitigated with careful monitoring.

I think this summary slide could be improved by noting that the overall risk of serious cancers is likely lowered by treating IBD.  Since colon cancer is a fairly common cancer and IBD treatment reduces the risk, this likely outweighs the increased risk of other cancers (eg. lymphoma) which are much less common.

Another link to video: https://tinyurl.com/IBDTreatments

Related posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

Venous Thrombosis in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

A recent “Grand Rounds” review of venous thrombosis (VT) in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (E Mitchel, T Diamond, L Albenberg. J Pediatr 2020; 216: 213-7) provides some practical advice in an area in need of more clarity.

Risk factors for VT:

  • inflammation
  • malnutrition
  • dehydration
  • malabsorption
  • need for surgery
  • medications (eg. steroids)
  • immobilization
  • infection
  • placement of central line
  • hormonal contraceptive use
  • cigarette use
  • hereditary thrombophilia/first-degree relative with VT

Key points:

  • Pediatric patients with IBD are at increased risk for VT with an estimated incidence between 0.09% and 1.9%.  Patients hospitalized with an IBD flare have a “6-fold increased risk for pulmonary embolism and deep-vein thrombosis as compared” to hospitalized patients without IBD.  In another study, the risk was lower with a relative risk for VT of 2.37 for Crohn’s and 1.99 for ulcerative colitis (UC).
  • ESPGHAN guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with acute severe colitis and at least 1 risk factor (in prepubertal children — at least 2 risk factors).  Mobilization and hydration are also recommended.
  • At the authors’ institution, “patients <12 years do not meet routine criteria” for thromboprophylaxis unless at high risk.
  • Patients >12 years who are at medium or high risk are given mechanical prophylaxis with a pneumatic compression device (if no contraindications).
  • In those at high risk and >12 years, pharmacologic prophylaxis is considered in concert with hematology service. “High risk is considered altered mobility and at least 1 risk factor.”

My take: In adolescents hospitalized with IBD, this article suggests that almost all should receive mechanical prophylaxis for VT and a subset at increased risk may benefit from pharmaccologic prophylaxis.

Related blog posts:

From a visit to Montreal

Highlights in IBD from Two 2019 Meetings: American College of Gastroenterology and United European Gastroenterology Week

Posted on by

Gastroenterology & Hepatology. December 2019 – Volume 15, Issue 12, Supplement 5

Excerpts from William Sandborn Commentary which are at the end of this supplement along with references:

Vedolizumab

In the VARSITY study (An Efficacy and Safety Study of Vedolizumab Intravenous [IV] Compared to Adalimumab Subcutaneous [SC] in Participants With Ulcerative Colitis), 769 patients with ulcerative colitis were randomized to a year of therapy with either adalimumab at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose or vedolizumab at the FDA-approved dose…This shows that the idea that vedolizumab (and anti-integrin therapy) is slower-acting than anti-TNF therapy is not correct, and that both of these classes of drugs can work fairly quickly in a number of patients.

Dr Brian Bressler and colleagues looked at the effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy in the real world when used second line after failing first-line biologic therapy with vedolizumab…The study conducted by Dr Bressler and colleagues, which included both Crohn’s disease patients and ulcerative colitis patients, found that the results were fairly similar whether patients received first-line biologic therapy with an anti-TNF agent or whether patients received first-line therapy with vedolizumab… It is generally thought that vedolizumab is a safer therapy than anti-TNF therapy, so with the finding from this study, a reasonable treatment approach could be to start with vedolizumab and see if it works…

Dr Christina Chambers and colleagues identified outcomes for pregnancy in 223 women, 53 of whom received vedolizumab. The researchers found that there were no major structural birth defects reported in the vedolizumab group, compared to 5.7% and 5.3% in the disease-matched group and healthy control group, respectively. Thus, there seemed to be no signal for an increased malformation risk in patients who were undergoing treatment with vedolizumab and became pregnant.

Adalimumab

The SERENE trials are a set of head-to-head trials, one for ulcerative colitis and one for Crohn’s disease, comparing standard-dose adalimumab to a more intensive induction regimen of adalimumab…

For both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, the SERENE trials showed that the current FDA-approved dosing regimen is effective and that more intensive induction therapy does not improve outcomes over time. Thus, there is no utility in giving high induction doses. 

Tofacitinib

Over 1000 patients who had been treated with tofacitinib were examined…during induction and maintenance of the placebo-controlled portion of the tofacitinib clinical trials, there were a total of 5 deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli events. All 5 occurred in patients who were receiving placebo; none of these events occurred in patients who were receiving tofacitinib…[And] There was a total of 5 deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli events during this long-term extension…Looking at the ulcerative colitis clinical trial data that I presented, it is somewhat reassuring that we did not see the same elevation in risk for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli that was seen in the high-risk rheumatoid arthritis patient population.

Mont Royal (Montreal)

Development of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis in Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

A recent study (A Chandrakumar et al. J Pediatr 2019; 215: 144-51) followed 190 children with inflammatory bowel disease from 2011 to 2018 in a longitudinal population-based cohort in Manitoba and examined the development of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC).  The diagnosis of PSC was made on discretion of the treating physician; thus, only a subset of patients underwent extensive evaluations for PSC.

Key findings:

  • 9 developed PSC-UC (9/95) and overall 11 developed PSC-IBD (11/190)
  • Among children with PSC-UC, 8 had high GGT (>50) at baseline and only 1 had a normal GGT at baseline.
  • All UC patients who developed PSC were diagnosed withing 6 months of their UC diagnosis.
  • At baseline, 22 patients with UC had an elevated GGT and 73 had a normal GGT.  Thus, about one-third of patients with an elevated GGT developed PSC (possibly more as all patients were not subjected to extensive testing)

My view: This study reinforces two concepts: 1) GGT is valuable as a screening test 2) PSC (often asymptomatic) is fairly common in UC and needs to be considered especially in the first year of diagnosis.  What this study does not do is help us figure out what should be done about children with asymptomatic PSC as there are no proven therapies.

Related blog posts:

More Pics from P’tit Train du Nord Linear Park

A Little More Data on Antibiotic Cocktail for Pediatric Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

A recent prospective study (D Turner et al. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, izz298, https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izz298) with 28 children found improvement in 5-day PUCAI scores in patients who received quadruple antibiotics in combination with IV corticosteroids compared to those who received IV corticosteroids alone.

Link: Antibiotic Cocktail for Pediatric Acute Severe Colitis and the Microbiome: The PRASCO Randomized Controlled Trial

Methods:

Hospitalized children with ASC (pediatric ulcerative colitis activity index [PUCAI] ≥65) were randomized into 2 arms: the first received antibiotics in addition to IVCS (amoxicillin, vancomycin, metronidazole, doxycycline/ciprofloxacin [IVCS+AB]), whereas the other received only IVCS for 14 days. The primary outcome was disease activity (PUCAI) at day 5. Microbiome was analyzed using 16S rRNA gene and metagenome.My t

Results

Twenty-eight children were included: 16 in the AB + IVCS arm and 12 in the IVCS arm (mean age 13.9 ± 4.1 years and 23 [82%] with extensive colitis). The mean day-5 PUCAI was 25 ± 16.7 vs 40.4 ± 20.4, respectively (P = 0.037). Only 3 and 2 children, respectively, required colectomy during 1-year follow-up (P = 0.89). Microbiome data at time of admission were analyzed for 25 children, of whom 17 (68%) had a predominant bacterial species (>33% abundance); response was not associated with the specific species, whereas decreased microbiome

My take: Combination antibiotic therapy appears to improve disease activity in children with acute severe ulcerative colitis.  More and larger studies are needed to determine whether this is associated with improved long-term outcomes as well as which antimicrobials are optimal.

Related blog posts -ASUC:

Related blog posts -Calprotectin:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition