VICTORY Consortium Showing Good Results for Vedolizumab

A presentation at the 13th Congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO, Feb 2018) indicated that Vedolizumab had similar effectiveness as anti-TNF agents for both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. This data has been presented at a recent meeting in our office, some of the GI news magazines, and also ImproveCareNow listserv.

From Takeda website: Entyvio® (vedolizumab) Shows Higher Rates of Mucosal Healing Versus TNFα-Antagonist Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Patients in Comparative Effectiveness Real-World Data Analysis

These analyses observed that patients with UC treated with Entyvio compared to TNFα-antagonist therapy had statistically significant higher 12-month cumulative rates of mucosal healing (50% vs 42%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10‑2.73) and clinical remission (54% vs 37%; HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.08‑2.18), and numerically higher steroid-free clinical remission rates (49% vs 38%; HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.79‑2.60). In CD, results reported statistically significant higher 12-month cumulative rates of mucosal healing (50% vs 41%; HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13‑2.47), and numerically higher rates of clinical remission (38% vs 34%; HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91‑1.78) and steroid-free clinical remission (26% vs 18%; HR 1.75, 95% CI 0.90‑3.43) compared to TNFα-antagonist therapy. These analyses were conducted by the VICTORY (Vedolizumab Health OuTComes in InflammatORY Bowel Diseases) Consortium.

My take: While the data compare anti-TNFs to vedolizumab in a “real-world setting,” the reported outcomes for anti-TNFs are lower than in other studies.  Vedolizumab had the best results in those with colonic disease.  Patients with Crohn’s disease with isolated small bowel disease had lower response rates.

Related study: AK Waljee et al Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018; 24: 1185-95. Using phase 3 clinical trial data with 594 subjects, the authors note that the majority of patients who will respond to vedolizumab can be identified by week 6 using a laboratory algorithm based on hemoglobin, albumin, vedolizumab level and CRP. Fformula: Hgb*Albumin*VDZ level/CRP*Weight. A cutoff of 185.96 predicted success with an AuROC of 0.75.   Higher hemoglobin, higher albumin, and higher vedolizumab level, and lower CRP are associate with higher response rates.

Related blog posts:

Red Top Mountain, Homestead Trail

 

 

 

Opiates, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Mortality

A recent retrospective study (NE Burr et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 534-41) with 3517 patient’s with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 5349 with ulcerative colitis (UC) examined the frequency of opioid prescriptions and the relationship to fatal outcomes.

Key findings:

  • Compared to 1990-93, the period of 2010-13 saw a sharp rise in the use of opiods in England: 10% compared to 30%.
  • Prescription of strong opioids (>3 prescriptions per calendar year) was associated with premature mortality: Hazard ratio 2.18 for CD and 3.3 for UC.

This study is in agreement with other data showing increasing use of opiate prescriptions worldwide for chronic noncancer pain (although there has been a drop in the past year).  As with other studies of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, this study shows an association between opioid use and mortality.

My take: Needing an opioid may be a marker for more severe disease. Whether the opioid use directly contributes to mortality remains unclear.

 

Time Will Tell: Granulomatous Upper GI Inflammation

A recent retrospective study (K Queliza et al. JPGN 2018; 66: 620-23) describes seven patients with granulomatous disease in the upper GI tract who were diagnosed with ulcerative colitis.

This study examined patients at a single center between 2007-2016 with ages ranging from 2 years to 17 years.  Median time of followup is not provided.  Two patients required colectomy.  All patients had non-casseating granulomas identified in either the stomach or duodenum (or both) along with moderate to severe pancolitis.  All of the patients had extensive investigations, generally cross-sectional imaging (MRE or CT) or capsule endoscopy

Key point::

  • “The final classification of IBD was based on expert opinion from gastroenterologists, radiologists, and pathologists upon thorough review of the medical records.”

My take: This study highlights the confusion of the essentially binary classification of IBD into either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, when in fact there are hundreds of genetic mutations which give rise to inflammatory bowel disease.  Given that granulomas are a hallmark of Crohn’s disease and there are no pathognomic features of ulcerative colitis, only time will tell if these patients have an ulcerative colitis phenotype.  I wonder how many centers would take exception to this classification and describe these patients as ‘indeterminate’ colitis/IBDU (IBD unclassified).

Related blog posts:

Pediatric Home and Office Biologic Infusions -What is Needed

A recent clinical report (E Barfield et al. JPGN 2018; 66: 680-86) will be influential.  This guideline is from the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.  Congratulations to my partner, Chelly Dykes, who is one of the coauthors.

Full textAssuring Quality for Non-Hospital Based Biologic Infusions in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Clinical Report from the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition

For many years, our office has had an office-based infusion center which has provided infusions in a safe and cost-effective manner.  Recently, there have been some situations in which home-based infusions have been proposed either to lower costs and/or for convenience.  This report succinctly describes the hurdles that need to be addressed before recommending this treatment pathway. As noted below, patient safety encompasses a great deal more than infusion reactions. Delays in infusions (which can increase risk of loss of response) due to reactions and lapses in communication are additional issues.

Recommendation 1: Home- or office-based infusions should ensure safe administration of the biologic infusion, provide reliable execution of infusion-related orders (eg, laboratories for therapeutic drug monitoring, dose optimization protocols, etc), and be equipped to recognize and respond to potential complications.

  • Infusion reactions:  ” Infusion reactions associated with infliximab and vedolizumab can range from mild reactions such as fever and chills, dyspnea, pruritus, or urticaria (in approximately 5%–10%), to severe reactions including anaphylaxis, convulsions, and hypotension (<1%)”
  • Emergencies: “In the event of an urgent or emergent reaction during home- or office-based infusions, the in-home services agency (IHSA) nurse needs to be able to contact the appropriate ordering medical team member expeditiously by phone or pager to review/clarify specific concerns or needs to have an established clear policy on how to proceed with managing the reaction.” 
  • Communication: “We identified the lack or inconsistency of on-call coverage by the primary medical team when home- or office-based infusions occur as a significant barrier to safely initiating or continuing home- or office-based infusion programs. Difficulty in reaching a knowledgeable team member is a breach in reliable care and represents serious patient risk.”
  • Related work: “In addition to administering the biologic infusion, executing all other infusion-related orders is an important safety consideration. Implementing unique home infusion protocols is linked to treatment efficacy.”  

Recommendation 2: Pediatric home- or office-based infusions, particularly for patients 12 years and younger, should be staffed by a pediatric nurse professional with Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) certification and clinical experience with pediatric patients.

Recommendation 3: Evidence-based standard of care for biologic therapy maximizing effectiveness and treatment sustainability should be established before initiating home or office-based infusions.

Recommendation 4: Home- or office-based infusion pathways that decrease opportunity loss for patients and families and deliver high-quality, patient-centered care should be supported and reproduced.

Recommendation 5: Pediatric gastroenterologists should ensure appropriate shared liability with IHSAs to deliver high-quality care in home-based infusions for children by executing pragmatic steps as outlined below:

  1. “Document discussion with the patient and family about the indication, risks, and adverse event management …
  2. Refer the patient to an accredited, licensed IHSA based on patient’s insurance coverage. If no accredited, licensed IHSA for the pediatric patient exists, this is grounds for not initiating home- or office-based infusions…
  3. & 4. Use an infusion protocol… with clear directives on recognition of signs/symptoms of reactions and administration of reaction medications and use of EMS or parent transport to an emergency room.
  4. Maintain accurate documentation and communication of therapy type, dose, and frequency.
  5. Provide a reliable communication mechanism for the IHSA to notify provider of changes or infusion-related events
  6. Regularly reviewing ongoing IHSA performance with regard to delivery of services, accurate laboratory ordering and turnaround time, safety and quality concerns and timely redressal of these issues.
  7. Switch to another IHSA if the performance reliability is unsatisfactory. …we acknowledge that changing IHSAs may be difficult.”

Recommendation 6: A more equitable division of labor should be established to offset increased administrative burden placed on the pediatric gastroenterologist and medical team to effectively facilitate and maintain home- or office-based infusions, especially when driven by payer-mandated policies.

Recommendation 7: …Among patients receiving home- or office-based infusions, unreliable follow-up care with the provider as scheduled is grounds for discontinuation of home- or office-based biologic therapy.

Recommendation 8: A proper appeals process should be in place to prevent cost transference from payer to patient in payer-mandated decisions for home- or office-based infusions.

Our office practice:

  • Emergencies: In our office, there is always one physician dedicated to being available to assess patients who are receiving infusions.  This helps insure safety and in addition, helps to make sure that minor medical problems do not needlessly postpone important treatment.
  • Documentation: With our office-based infusions, each infusion is documented by the administering nurse.  This documentation along with labs are embedded in the medical record (EPIC) to help modify treatment.
  • Communication: In our office, prior to each infusion, each patient’s chart is reviewed and specific orders are given.  This assures that needed blood tests/imaging, additional treatments (eg. iron infusion), insurance authorizations, necessary followup, and personalized adjustments are made.  This type of communication needs to be replicated for home-based infusions; hence, the use of home-based infusions could result in a huge increase in uncompensated work for the treating physician.

My take: In my experience, office-based infusions can be provided safely and in a cost-effective manner.  While the convenience of home-based infusion is desirable, before implementing broadly, issues regarding communication, safety protocols, and documentation to allow modifications in therapy need to be proactively addressed. Families may not realize some of the complexities involved in managing infusions and how these issues could affect their child’s long-term response to biologic therapy.

Related blog posts:

The following image relates to another convenience-related health trend:

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications/diets (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician/nutritionist.  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.

Why Does Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis Increase the Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Ulcerative Colitis?

A recent retrospective study (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 68-74) compared adult patients who had ulcerative colitis (UC) with (n=23) and without primary sclerosing cholangitis (n=120) (PSC). All patients had pancolitis and were in clinical remission.

Key finding:

  • Patients with UC-PSC had more subclinical endoscopic activity (odds ratio (OR) 4.21) and histologic activity (OR 5.13) in the right colon compared with patients without PSC

It is known that the presence of PSC is a risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC).  A previous meta-analysis (RM Soetiknno et al. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 48-54) described a OR of CRC of 4.09.

My take: This study shows that UC patients with PSC who are in clinical remission have a greater degree of endoscopic and histologic inflammation in the proximal colon compared to patients without PSC.  This increased inflammation is a likely factor in the increased risk for CRC.

Related blog posts:

Crohn’s Disease Diagnosis Identified After Colectomy in Presumed Ulcerative Colitis

A recent retrospective single-center study (I Jones et al. JPGN 2018; 66: 69-72) identified a high rate of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) reclassification.  From 2003-2014, 570 children were diagnosed with IBD, including 190 with ulcerative colitis.  29 of these patients underwent colectomy.  Among this select group, 24% (7/29) were subsequently reclassified as having Crohn’s disease, sometimes several years later.  Only two of the seven reclassified patients were younger than 10 years of age at the time of colectomy.

My take: This rate of Crohn’s disease following colectomy is higher than in previous reports (generally 5-10%).  The larger point is that the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis is more uncertain in the pediatric population, particularly in those in the first decade of life.

Related blog posts:

Near Bright Angel Trail, Grand Canyon

Fatty Acid Intake and Risk of Ulcerative Colitis Flare

A recent study (Barnes EL et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1390-6) found an association between the intake of certain fatty acids and the risk of an ulcerative colitis flare.  This is nicely summarized in the AGA Journals Blog.

Here’s the link: Does Consumption of Certain Fatty Acids Increase Risk of Ulcerative Colitis Flares?

Here’s an excerpt:

Diets with high levels of fatty acids such as myristic acid (found in palm oil, coconut oil, and dairy fats) increased risk of flare in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), researchers report in the September issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Their findings, from a prospective study of more than 400 patients in remission during treatment with aminosalicylates, could guide future studies of supplements or compounds that reduce risk of flares in patients with UC in remission…

Edward L. Barnes et al performed a prospective study of dietary patterns among 412 patients, from 25 sites, with UC in remission during monotherapy with an aminosalicylate (mesalamine, sulfasalazine, or balsalazide for at least 3 months before enrollment). Patients completed a validated food frequency questionnaire (on consumption of dairy, fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat, fish, cereals, breads, and starches, beverages, sweets, and baked goods) at enrollment and were followed for 12 months…

Forty-five patients (11%) had a relapse of UC within 1 year of study enrollment… In multivariable analysis, higher intake of myristic acid (odds ratio, 3.01) and alpha linolenic acid (odds ratio, 5.50) were associated with increased risk of relapse, although a dose–response relationship was retained only for myristic acid intake.

Other foods previously implicated in flares of UC, such as processed meat, alcohol, and foods high in sulfur, were not associated with an increased risk of flare.

Related blog posts:

From Andy Warhol Exhibit at the High Museum

Breastfeeding: Protection from Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Xu L, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: breastfeeding and the risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitisAliment Pharmacol Ther2017;46:780-789.

https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14291Thanks to Mike Hart for this reference.

From abstract:

Results

A total of 35 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 7536 individuals with CD, 7353 with UC and 330 222 controls. Ever being breastfed was associated with a lower risk of CD (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85) and UC (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.91). While this inverse association was observed in all ethnicity groups, the magnitude of protection was significantly greater among Asians (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.48) compared to Caucasians (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93; P = .0001) in CD. Breastfeeding duration showed a dose-dependent association, with strongest decrease in risk when breastfed for at least 12 months for CD (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.50) and UC (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10-0.43) as compared to 3 or 6 months.

From associated editorial by David Rakel:

This meta-analysis of 35 studies shows that there is a dose–response protective effect of the duration of breastfeeding on inflammatory bowel disease. The association shows as much as an 80% reduction in risk for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis for breastfeeding more than 12 months.

Breast Feeding Graph

Inflammatory bowel disease arises from a complex set of interactions related to genetic susceptibility, environmental exposures, and a dysregulated immune response to dysbiotic intestinal microbiota, according to the study authors. These data will give us one more reason to encourage breastfeeding, ideally for a year or more.

Related blog post: Nutrition Week (Day 7) Connecting Diet and Epidemiology in IBD

 

 

Top Anti-TNF for Ulcerative Colitis

A recent retrospective cohort study (S Singh et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1218-25) compared infliximab and adalimumab in a nationwide Danish cohort of adults with ulcerative colitis (UC) from 2005-2014. The authors used propensity score and selected 171 patients who received infliximab (IFX) from a total of 1580 and 104 patients who received adalimumab (ADA) among a total of 139.

Key findings:

  • Patients who received ADA had higher hospitalization rates (HR 1.84) and a trend toward higher UC-related hospitalization (HR 1.71, CI 0.95-3.07) compared to IFX
  • Risk of abdominal surgery was not significantly higher in ADA patients (HR 1.35) compared to IFX
  • Serious infections were higher in ADA group, HR of 5.11 of needing hospitalization due to infections

There have been no randomized clinical trials  to determine if a specific anti-TNF agent is superior to another. In an associated editorial (MT Osterman, GR Lichtenstein, 1197-99), the authors note that while we don’t know which agent is superior, by comparing similar trials (ACT 1 & 2 for IFX and ULTRA 1 & 2 for ADA), “raw week 8 induction rates of clinical remission, clinical response, and mucosal healing are approximately 16%, 18%, and 19%, respectively, higher for infliximab”..”less dramatic differences favoring infliximab (approximately 9%, 13%, and 15%, respectively) are seen during maintenance at 1 year.”

My take: Due to the lack of randomized head-to-head studies, we do not know with certainty which anti-TNF is best for UC.  However, the data we have from retrospective cohort studies and from using raw data from prospective studies suggests that infliximab is effective in more patients.

Related blog posts:

University of Virginia Rotunda Pctures

 

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  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.