Tag Archives: Ulcerative colitis

Methotrexate Tolerance and Toxicity in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

E Vermeer et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026;82:477–486. Open Access! Methotrexate toxicity and intolerance in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease: A retrospective cohort study

This was a  a retrospective single-center cohort study, including pediatric IBD patients (n=207) initiating MTX between 2010 and 2023. The median follow-up time was 303 days.

Key findings:

  • Methotrexate was used in combination with a biologic medication in 114 patients (55%)
  • 157 patients (75.8%) experienced at least one MTX-induced AE, with hepatotoxicity occurring in 84 patients (53.5%), myelotoxicity in 43 patients (27.4%), and nausea in 95 patients (60.5%). Most hepato- and myelotoxicity cases were categorized as grade 1 or mild (60.7% and 81.4%, respectively). 10 patients had grade 3 hepatotoxicity (ALT 195-780 U/L)
  • Nausea was reported in 46%. Fatigue was identified in 13, Headache in 6, and Alopecia in 6
  • MTX was discontinued in 60 out of 157 cases with an AE (38%), including 27 following nausea, 27 and 4 following hepatotoxicity
  • Sixty-five (43.0%) of all biochemical toxicities occurred within the first 3 months of MTX initiation
  • Strategies to manage AEs included reduced dosage, use of antiemetics or PPIs, and change in route of administration

Discussion:

  • The authors recommend biochemical testing after initiation “at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, as most actionable toxicities occurred during this period. After 3 months, laboratory assessments could potentially be spaced out to every 4–6 months instead of every 3 months for stable patients, aligning with the new Dutch guideline for monitoring MTX toxicity in rheumatology.41 More frequent testing should be reserved for patients with risk factors such as renal dysfunction, hepatotoxic co-medications, or prior toxicity.42“
  • A study limitation was “the frequent use of combination therapy, leading to a heterogeneous study population and possible overestimation of AE rates”

My take: Methotrexate remains an important part of treatment, especially combination treatment to prevent or overcome immunogenicity. Careful monitoring and prophylactic treatments of nausea may improve durability.

Related blog posts:

Japanese Garden, Buenos Aires

Case Report: Car-T for Refractory Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

 F Muller et al. NEJM 2025;393:1239-1241. CD19 CAR T-Cell Therapy in Multidrug-Resistant Ulcerative Colitis

This case study involved the use of “autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting CD19 in a 21-year-old woman with severe multidrug-resistant ulcerative colitis, who had declined colectomy. Previous treatments with prednisolone, mesalamine, infliximab, ustekinumab, ozanimod, filgotinib, vedolizumab, upadacitinib, and cyclosporine combined with mirikizumab had not induced clinical remission.”

“Clinical and biochemical remission occurred and were maintained over the 14-week follow-up period… without the use of concomitant therapy. Endoscopic, histologic, and ultrasonographic assessments showed signs of mucosal healing over time….These data suggest the possibility that CD19 CAR T-cell therapy can induce rapid drug-free remission in refractory ulcerative colitis, a disease that was previously thought to be largely B-cell–independent, given that rituximab treatment showed no efficacy..”

My take: This is only a single case report. However, it shows that modulation of the immune system could potentially cure ulcerative colitis. At the same time, long term adverse effects of CAR-T therapy will need to be monitored.

Related blog posts:


PREdiCCt Trial: Lower Calprotectin Targets in Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

Constantine-Cooke N, Gros B, Plevris N, et al Gut 2026. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2025-337846. (Open Access!) Associations between demographic, clinical and dietary factors and flares in inflammatory bowel disease: the PRognostic effect of Environmental factors in Crohn’s and Colitis (PREdiCCt) prospective cohort study

Methods: Multicentre, prospective cohort study conducted across 47 UK centres. Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) or IBD unclassified (IBDU) in self-reported remission were prospectively followed up. 2629 participants (1370 CD; 1259 UC/IBDU) – followed up for a median of 4.1 years.

Key findings:

  • Baseline FC was strongly associated with patient-reported flares (FC ≥250 µg/g: adjusted HR (aHR) 2.22; FC 50–250 µg/g: aHR 1.52 (reference <50 µg/g)).
  • Baseline FC was also strongly associated with objective flares (FC ≥250 µg/g: aHR 3.25; FC 50–250 µg/g: aHR 1.98). Objective flares were “clinical flare plus C-reactive protein >5 mg/L and/or faecal calprotectin (FC) >250 µg/g with treatment escalation.” In ulcerative colitis, the probability of an objective flare within two years rose from 11% in those with baseline calprotectin below 50 µg/g to 34% in those above 250.
  • At 24 months, cumulative patient-reported and objective flare rates were 28% and 12% in CD, and 33% and 15% in UC/IBDU, respectively. Overall, patient-reported flares were more common (31%), while objective flares were less frequent (14%).
  • In UC, higher total meat intake was associated with increased risk of objective flares (highest versus lowest quartile: aHR 1.95, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.56). The absolute two-year risk rose from 12% in the lowest quartile of meat intake to 26% in the highest.
  • No consistent associations were observed for ultraprocessed foods, fiber or polyunsaturated fatty acids and flare.
Flares by faecal calprotectin (FC) stratified into FC < 50, 50 ≤ FC ≤ 250, and FC >250 μg/g. (A) Patient-reported flare in Crohn’s disease; (B) objective flare in Crohn’s disease; (C) patient-reported flare in ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified; (D) objective flare in ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified. aHR, adjusted hazard ratio.

My take: Lower calprotectin values, even in remission, are associated with better outcomes. Risk was meaningfully increased even in the 50–250 µg/g range, compared with levels below 50. Higher meat intake may increase the risk of flares for UC.

Summary of study information from Charlie Lees: The PREdiCCt Study: Can We Predict IBD Flares?

Related blog posts:

Etrasimod for Ulcerative Colitis (2026)

Posted on by

AJ Yarur et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2026; 24: 210 – 220. Open Access! Efficacy of Etrasimod in Ulcerative Colitis: Analysis of ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 by Baseline Endoscopic Severity.

Methods: Efficacy end points were evaluated at Weeks 12 (pooled population) and 52 (ELEVATE UC 52)

Key findings:

  • Clinical remission in the moderate group compared to placebo: Week 12: 38.3% vs 17.9%; Week 52: 36.5% vs 14.3%
  • Clinical remission in the severe group compared to placebo: Week 12: 18.2% vs 6.1%; Week 52: 29.4% vs 3.4%
  • “Our findings were consistent with those for other UC treatments…with efficacy improvements generally being greater among patients who were naive rather than experienced with biologics and/or JAKi.12–17“

My take: Etrasimod demonstrated significant induction and maintenance efficacy over placebo in both moderate and severe endoscopic disease. Its role remains limited as there are other treatments with improved likelihood of response, especially in those with prior advanced therapies. However, it is notable that recent AGA guidelines promote etrasimod as one of the higher efficacy agents in patients naive to advanced therapies.

Related blog posts:

Calprotectin Correlates with Disease Extent and Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

O Steinsbo et al. Am J Gastrolenterol 2025. 120: 2623-2631. Open Access! Fecal Calprotectin Correlates With Disease Extent but Remains a Reliable Marker of Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis. Thanks to Ben Gold for this reference.

This single-center observational study (n=254) examined the correlation between fecal calprotectin (FC) levels with both disease extent and mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Mucosal healing was rated by the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES).

Key findings:

  • Disease extent: FC levels were significantly lower in proctitis (440 mg/kg) as compared with left-sided colitis (840 mg/kg) or pancolitis (1,690 mg/kg)
  • Mucosal healing: In MES ≤1, FC levels were significantly lower in proctitis (24) compared to left-sided colitis (40) or pancolitis (85)

My take: Fecal calprotectin levels are clearly affected by the extent of disease involvement. However, the increase in calprotectin values associated with disease activity was significantly larger than the differences attributed to disease extent.

Related blog posts:

IBD Briefs: Upadcitinib in Children with Severe Colitis and Timing of Infliximab Switch to SC Route in Adults

Posted on by

A Yerushalmy-Feler et al. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 2025, 31, 3320–3326. Real-World Experience with Upadacitinib for Pediatric Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis: An International Multicenter Retrospective Study from the Pediatric IBD Porto Group of ESPGHAN

In this study of 22 pediatric patients with ASUC refractory to infliximab, key findings:

  • By week 26, 14 (64%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission and 16 (73%) patients remained colectomy-free
  • Two serious AEs of an appendiceal neuroendocrine tumor and cytomegalovirus colitis

My take: It is good to see more pediatric data. The availability of upadacitinib will likely lead to lower colectomy rates.

Related blog post: IBD Briefs: Upadacitinib in Children, Predicting Crohn’s Disease, and Autoimmune Diseases Associated with IBD

L Bertani et al. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 2025, 31, 3363–3369. When to Switch to Subcutaneous Infliximab? The RE-WATCH Multicenter Study

Methods: The RE-WATCH study was an observational, multicenter, retrospective study performed in four IBD referral centers. Inclusion criteria meant that only patients receiving on label SC-IFX at a dosage of 120 mg every other week were included in the study. The initiation of IFX therapy as the baseline timepoint.

Key findings:

  • There were no statistical differences between the two groups, early vs. late switch, after one year in terms of the respective endoscopic response (71.4% vs 70.8%, P = .95), steroid-free clinical remission (62.5% vs 68.7%, P = .51), or IFX retention rate (75.0% vs 66.7%, P = .35).
  • There was higher endoscopic remission rates in early switch patients as compared to late switch patients; however, this trend was not significant (69.6% vs 52.1%, P = .07).
  • A return to IV-IFX was required in 1 of 43 early switch patients and in 3 of 44 late switch patients (2.3% vs 6.8%, P = .31)
  • While the early switch group appears to fare a little better, there is likely a selection bias. For example, the early group had a much lower rate of severe endoscopic score at baseline (20% vs. 54%) and lower rate of Crohn’s fistulizing disease (8% vs 33%).
partial Mayo score (pMS)
Harvey–Bradshaw index (HBI)

My take: These results indicate that outcomes are similar between patients switching from to IFX SC at both early (after induction) and late (after 6 months).

It is worth noting that prior studies have shown that home-based therapies (eg. home infusion), compared to office-based therapies, have been “associated with suboptimal outcomes including higher rates of nonadherence and discontinuation of infliximab.” This is a concern for SC biologics as well.

Related blog posts:

Effectiveness of Switch to Subcutaneous Infliximab

Posted on by

N Mathieu et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 23: 2597 – 2606. Open Access! PErsistence and Safety of Subcutaneous Infliximab 1 Year After Switch From Intravenous Route in IBD Patients in REMission

Methods: The PEREM (PErsistence, effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous infliximab after switch from intravenous infliximab in IBD patients in REMission) study, a prospective national French cohort trial, enrolled 426 patients with IBD. Participants were in steroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on IV-IFX when they switched to SC-IFX. 56% were on IV-IFX standard dosing (5 mg/kg 8-weekly) and 16% received combination therapy with an immunomodulator drug at baseline. All patients were switched to SC-IFX standard dosing (ie, 120 mg every other week). The treatment could be intensified during follow-up, either to 120 mg every week or 240 mg every other week.

Key Findings:

  •  At week 48, SC-IFX persistence was 95.4%
  •  86.9% of patients were in steroid-free clinical remission
  • Mean infliximab levels were 8.0 μg/mL at inclusion and 18.0 μg/mL at week 48 (P < .0001)
  • Among the 19 (4.5%) patients who stopped SC-IFX, 6 (1.4%) switched back to IV-IFX
  • 23 (5.4%) patients required SC-IFX dose escalation
  • Dosing at 10 mg/kg/Q4W had 100% SC IFX persistence compared to 95% for 5 mg/kg/Q8W; however, at the 48 week followup, there were only 6 patients in the higher dose compared to 149 in the lower dose
  • Ongoing use of combination therapy was not associated with better persistence. Though, only 7 patients were receiving combination therapy at the 48 week followup

From the discussion:

  • “The high persistence observed in the PEREM study is partly explained by the long-term control of the disease by the time of switch, the median time since last flare being over 5 years before inclusion. Henceforth, the persistence observed here is in accordance with results on long term maintenance of IV-IFX, the yearly persistence of IV-IFX without intervention being 87%.”
  • SC-IFX was associated with higher levels. However, this was expected and higher levels are needed with SC administration. The “different bioavailability of SC-IFX compared with IV-IFX is responsible for different goals of infliximab blood levels depending on its route. In particular, a level above 20 μg/mL has been associated with higher rates of remission20” with SC-IFX.

My take: This study shows that SC-IFX is a good option for patients in long-term remission. With SC-IFX therapy, more effort is needed to make sure patients are adherent with therapy and monitoring in order to achieve optimal outcomes.

Related blog posts:

Postoperative Outcomes with Tofacitinib Following Colectomy for ASUC and Real-World Outcomes for Upadacitinib in Crohn’s Disease

Posted on by

C Larson et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 23: 2263-2271. Postoperative Outcomes in Tofacitinib-Treated Patients With Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis Undergoing Colectomy

This  was a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of patients hospitalized with ASUC who underwent colectomy, comparing patients treated with tofacitinib (n=41) prior to colectomy with infliximab-treated controls (n=68).

Key findings:

  • Compared with tofacitinib-treated patients, infliximab-treated patients had higher overall rates of overall (44 [64.7%] vs 13 [31.7%]; P = .002) and serious (19 [27.9%] vs 3 [12%]; P = .019) postoperative complications

My take: This study supports the safety of JAK inhibitor therapy for ASUC. It showed a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications in ASUC patients treated with tofacitinib compared with infliximab; the authors note that “these findings can likely be extrapolated to upadacitinib, a selective JAK inhibitor, given its similar mechanism of action.”

J Devi et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 23: 2281-2291. Open Access! Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Upadacitinib in Crohn’s Disease: A Multicenter Study

Related blog posts:

How to Best Use Steroids for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

JD Feuerstein et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 23: 2068-2082. Open Access! Appropriate Use and Complications of Corticosteroids in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Steroids are commonly used and misused for inflammatory bowel disease. This article reviews best practices, steroid formulations/dosing, and potential complications.

  • For moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (in adults), the authors recommend treatment with 40 mg of prednisone daily. Patients with ASUC (acute severe ulcerative colitis) should be treated with 60 mg of IV methylprednisolone for 3 to 5 days, after which rescue therapy should be initiated
  • Use of budesonide is recommended as an option for many clinical situations to minimize steroid adverse effects. These situations include mild-moderate UC failing to respond to mesalamine, ileal CD and older patients
  • Postoperative complications: “In the postoperative period, patients treated with CS had a higher risk of both infectious complications (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.24–10.97) and major infectious complications (aOR, 5.54; 95% CI, 1.12–27.26) [Abrerra et al].135  Subramanian pooled data from 7 studies showing that preoperative CS use is associated with increased postoperative complications (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07–1.87) as well as infectious complications.

The authors note that corticosteroids “remain widely available and are an effective short-term option for induction of remission in patients with active UC or inflammatory CD. However, their well-described and significant safety profile warrants proactive strategies to limit their use through non-systemic formulations, short-term exposures, steroid-sparing maintenance options, and most recently, complete steroid avoidance strategies.”

My take: Continuing steroids when they are not effective prior to potential surgery (eg. ASUC) remains a frequent problem. Sometimes, it is difficult to know it they are helping some.

Prior Exposure to TNF Antagonists May Increase Response to JAK Inhibitors in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

HH Lee et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2025; 23, 2102 – 2114. Open Access! Differential Efficacy of Advanced Therapies in Inducing Remission in Ulcerative Colitis Based on Prior Exposure to TNF Antagonists

Methods: Meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials in 8871 adults with moderate-severe UC. The authors calculated the ratio of odds ratio of achieving remission with active drug vs placebo, in TNF antagonist–naïve vs TNF antagonist–exposed patients.

Key findings:

  • JAK inhibitors: Less efficacious in TNF antagonist–naïve vs exposed patients (6 trials; ratio of OR, 0.47)
  • IL-23 antagonists: No significant difference was observed in efficacy of selective interleukin-23 antagonists vs placebo in TNF antagonist–naïve vs exposed patients (6 trials; ratio of OR, 1.07)
  • Lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors: More efficacious in TNF antagonist–naïve vs exposed patients (5 trials; odds ratio [OR], 1.88)

Discussion:

  • This study “confirmed prior observations that exposure to TNF antagonists significantly reduces the efficacy of lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors in inducing remission, including both vedolizumab and S1P receptor modulators, by approximately 50%.In contrast, prior exposure to TNF antagonists was associated with a significant increase in the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in inducing remission, with 2-fold higher efficacy in TNF antagonist–exposed vs TNF antagonist–naïve patients”
  • In the SELECT-COMPARE trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, there was also an improved response to upadacitinib in patients with prior adalimumab.
  • “The current findings raise the intriguing possibility that exposure to TNF antagonists could result in lasting effects on the immune system that differentially alter responsiveness to therapies with distinct mechanisms of action”

My take: This study suggests that JAK inhibitors are a good choice for secondary therapy after anti-TNF agents. Other factors, besides efficacy, including safety, extraintestinal manifestations, and cost, have to be considered as well.

Related blog 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.