In this retrospective review (1998-2018), the authors identified 39 patients with esophageal Crohn disease (ECD) who met inclusion criteria.
35 (92%) had a clinical response to treatment and 21 (55%) went into clinical remission
ECD seems to be associated with more disabling intestinal CD phenotypes. Of the 39 patients, 10 (26%) had stricturing phenotype and 21 (54%) had penetrating phenotype; 19 (49%) had perianal disease
“Initial treatment after diagnosis with anti-TNFalpha agents compared to other biologics was associated with greater improvement in clinical (97% vs 71%; P=0.02) and endoscopic response (95% vs. 40%; P<0.01) and in clinical remission (64.5% vs. 14.2%; P=0.01).”
Initial treatment with an anti-TNFalpha agent was initial treatment in 18 patients with ECD; 14 had an inflammatory, 3 had a stricturing, and 1 had a fistulizing phenotype.
While this study showed better response to anti-TNFalpha agents compared to other biologics (eg. anti-IL-12/IL-23 agents), this may be due to a selection bias as other biologics are often used as a second-line treatment and are selected more often in refractory disease.
My take: Esophageal Crohn’s disease is a rare diagnosis and appears associated with more severe disease.
In total, 769 patients received vedolizumab (n = 383) or adalimumab (n = 386). Geboes Index and Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) scores were used to assess prespecified histologic exploratory end points of histologic remission (Geboes <2 or RHI ≤2) and minimal histologic disease activity (Geboes ≤3.1 or RHI ≤4) at weeks 14 and 52.
Vedolizumab induced greater histologic remission than adalimumab:
week 14: Geboes: 16.7% vs 7.3%, RHI: 25.6% vs 16.1%
week 52: Geboes: 29.2% vs 8.3%, RHI: 37.6% vs 19.9%
Histologic outcomes were generally better in anti–TNF-naïve vs -failure patients
My take: This study shows that histologic outcomes with vedolizumab, similar to clinical outcomes, were better than with adalimumab. Some of this difference could be due to the trail design which did not allow optimization of adalimumab dosing.
The panel agreed that reactive TDM should be used for all biologics for both primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response
It was recommended that treatment discontinuation should not be considered for infliximab or adalimumab until a drug concentration of at least 10–15 mg/mL was achieved
Consensus was also achieved regarding the utility of proactive TDM for anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy. It was recommended to perform proactive TDM after induction and at least once during maintenance.
More data are needed with regard to proactive TDM for biologics other than anti-TNF agents
There are no differences in interpreting TDM between originator biologics and biosimilars
When considering switching within drug class in case of secondary loss of response to a first anti-TNF drug because of the development of antidrug antibodies, an immunomodulator should be added to a subsequent anti-TNF therapy
Low-titer antidrug antibodies can be overcome by treatment optimization (dose escalation, dose interval shortening, and/or addition of an immunomodulator)
My take: This article should help support the practice of proactive TDM and discourage stopping anti-TNF agents until an adequate therapeutic level is achieved.
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.
A recent study (MT Dolinger et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021; 27: 1210-1214) and the associated editorial (D Geem, S Kugathasan. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2021; 27: 1361-1362) describe the use of multiple therapies (biologics and small molecule therapy) to target refractory pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Since the term “combination therapy” is already in broad use for those receiving a biologic agent and an immunomodulator, I plan to refer to these new combinations as ‘dual immunotherapy’ for IBD.
Dolinger et al (Dual Biologic and Small Molecule Therapy for the Treatment of Refractory Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease) described 16 children with dual immunotherapy. Nine (56%) were treated with vedolizumab/tofacitinib, 4 (25%) with ustekinumab/vedolizumab, and 3 (19%) with ustekinumab/tofacitinib. Twelve (75%; 7 ulcerative colitis/IBD-unspecified, 5 Crohn’s disease ) achieved steroid-free remission at 6 months. One patient on 30 mg of vedolizumab/tofacitinib and prednisone daily developed septic arthritis and a deep vein thrombosis.
Except for “anti-TNF medications (infliximab and adalimumab), no other biologic therapies are FDA-approved for children with IBD”
“Clinical disease remission is achieved in only 40-60% of patients on anti-TNF medications”
With ustekinumab, “limited pediatric data reveal that in patients who have failed at least 1 biologic therapy, 38.6-58% achieve clinical remission by week 52…[And] vedolizumab …demonstrated steroid-free remission in 20% by week 22 in a single-center prospective observational cohort study.”
The response to dual immunotherapy is most likely due to the synergistic effects of two medications rather than the start of a new medication. The authors note a prior study which showed a positive experience of adding ustekinumab in 5 children who developed severe paradoxical psoriasis with infliximab and in another subset of pediatric patients, there was improvement with combination vedolizumab/infliximab (Paediatr Drugs 2020; 22: 409-416)
My take (borrowed from editorial): “Given the phenotypic heterogeneity of pediatric IBD and the multiple inflammatory immune pathways implicated in its pathogenesis, the approach of biologic monotherapy–may not be suitable for all patients…patients may require specific combinations…to quell multiple arms of their dysregulated immune response.” More trials are needed to determine the safety of these regimens (especially with regard to malignancy and infections).
In an observational prospective longitudinal study of with newly diagnosed Crohn’s disease in 156 adults followed for nearly 1.5 years, Yanai et al found that 52 patients (33.3%) had an indolent course of CD, 29 (18.5%) required hospitalizations, and 75 (48%) were recommended to start steroid, immunomodulator, or biologic therapies. An “indolent course” indicated a lack of needing steroids, immunomodulators, anti-TNF agents, hospitalization or surgery. Key findings:
There were 4 factors associated with complicated course in treatment-naïve patients: body mass index <25 kg/m2 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.45; 95% CI, 1.07–5.43; P = .033), serum level of vitamin B12 <350 pg/mL (HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.21–6.41; P = .016), white blood cells ≥7 × 103/μL (HR, 2.419; 95% CI, 1.026–5.703; P = .044), and serum level of ALT ≥25 IU/L (HR, 2.680; 95% CI, 1.186–6.058; P = .018).
This model discriminated between patients with vs without a complicated course of disease with 90% and 89% accuracy at 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, respectively. A validation cohort demonstrated a discriminatory ability of 79% at 3 months after diagnosis, and a nomogram was constructed (see below)
My take: In this study, low BMI, low Vit B12, high wbc, and high ALT were associated with a more complicated course. These particularly risk factors do not seem intuitive to me. These findings need to be looked at in the pediatric age group, which likely has a lower rate of an indolent course.
In this retrospective study of 270 consecutive adult patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) (2002-2017), the cumulative risk of colectomy was 12.3% (95% CI, 8.6–16.8). Key findings:
Based on multivariate analysis, previous treatment with TNF antagonists or thiopurines (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86), Clostridioides difficile infection (HR, 3.73), serum level of C-reactive proteinabove 3.0 mg/dL (HR, 3.06), and serum level of albumin below 3.0 g/dL (HR, 2.67) were associated with increased risk of colectomy
The cumulative risks of colectomy within 1 y in patients with scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 were 0.0%, 9.4% (95% CI, 4.3%–16.7%), 10.6% (95% CI, 5.6%–17.4%), 51.2% (95% CI, 26.6%–71.3%), and 100%. Negative predictive values ranged from 87% (95% CI, 82%–91%) to 92% (95% CI, 88%–95.0%). Findings from the validation cohort were consistent with findings from the derivation cohort.
My take: These findings confirm other studies in patients with ulcerative colitis which have shown that each of these criteria were predictors of severe disease.
In this retrospective study with 98 patients, the authors examined the sensitivity and specificity of fecal calprotectin (FC) at a cutoff of 150 mcg/g in comparison to findings of ileocolonoscopy and MRE in those with isolated ileal CD (L1, n=14), colonic CD (L2, n=10) and ilecolonic CD (L3, n=74) . Note: the abstract erroneously states the cutoff as 50 mcg/g.
The sensitivity and specificity of FC for L1 CD were 36% and 91%, respectively, compared to 93% and 75% for L2 and 70% and 95% for L3.
An FC of 95 mg/kg was identified as the best cut off for identification of active isolated ileal disease, with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 56%
My take: Though this study had only 14 patients with isolated ileal disease, it is likely that a calprotectin level is less reliable as a biomarker in these patients.
Related article: Jukic A, Bakiri L, Wagner EF, et al Calprotectin: from biomarker to biological functionGut Published Online First: 18 June 2021. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324855. Thanks to KT Park for this reference. Open Access- Full text: Calprotectin: from biomarker to biological function
“Regarding major congenital malformations, we believe that the results should be interpreted with caution. The numbers of these outcomes are relatively low and the statistical precision of the risk estimates should be taken into consideration.”
My take: Overall, this study is reassuring. Though it is difficult to prove these medications do not have impacts on newborns, if these effects were frequent, it would likely be evident in this type of study.
Using a selected sample from a database with >62 million patients, this retrospective cohort study determined the rates of colorectal cancer among patients with IBD. Key finding:
Among the IBD cohort, patients treated with anti-TNF agents were less likely to develop CRC; patients with Crohn’s disease: odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.73; P < 0.0001 vs patients with ulcerative colitis: odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.83; P < 0.0001.
My take: This study found an association between anti-TNF therapy and a reduced risk of CRC in patients with IBD.
A series of articles details the 2021 AGA Guidelines for Crohn’s disease (CD) including a clinical practice guideline (pg 2496-2508), a clinical decision support tool (2509-2510), a spotlight summary (pg 2511), a technical review (2512-2557), and a review of the recommendations (pg 2557-2262). I will highlight the first article.
For me the most important of their recommendations was #7:
In adult outpatients with moderate to severe CD, the AGA suggests early introduction with a biologic with or without an immunomodulator rather than delaying their use until after failure of 5-aminosalicylates and/or corticosteroids.
For moderate to severe CD, the authors support the use of anti-TNF therapy in combination with immunomodulators, support the use of ustekinumab and vedolizumab, and support the use of SC/IM (but not oral) methotrexate.
The authors are AGAINST the use of mesalamine/sulfasalazine products as well as corticosteroids for maintenance of remission for CD