Tag Archives: Ulcerative colitis

HLA-DRB1*01:03: Biomarker for Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

MV Vestergaard et al. . JAMA. Published online October 15, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.20429. HLA-DRB1*01:03 and Severe Ulcerative
Colitis

Background: This study aimed to identify biomarkers by conducting a Danish nationwide genome-wide association study (GWAS) on severe vs less severe ulcerative colitis.

Methods: Severe ulcerative colitis: Patients with severe ulcerative colitis were defined as having at least 1 major ulcerative colitis–related operation, at least 2 ulcerative colitis–related hospitalizations exceeding 2 days, and/or use of at least 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis

The authors utilized two source populations

  1. The Center for Molecular Prediction of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (PREDICT) neonatal blood spot cohort (NBS) includes individuals born in Denmark and diagnosed with ulcerative colitis from 1981 to 2022
  2. The North Denmark Biobank study is a population-based cohort of patients from Northern Denmark with inflammatory bowel disease from 1978 to 2020 (NorDIBD)

The combined cohort included 4491 patients (4153 from NBS and 338 from NorDIBD) with a mean (SD) age at diagnosis of 23.3 (8.4) years; 53% of patients were female and 27% had severe disease.

Key findings:

  • The association with HLA-DRB1*01:03 (Figure 1) had an OR of 6.38 for major operation, OR of 5.24 for at least 2 hospitalizations, and OR of 2.30 for use of at least 5000 mg
    of systemic corticosteroids in carriers vs noncarriers
  • Carriage of HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele was 2.8% in these cohorts
  • Limiation: Danish cohort -may not be applicable to other populations

My take: HLA-DRB1*01:03 is a low-frequency allele, carriers have a significantly higher risk of severe ulcerative colitis.

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.

Antibiotics and IBD Risk: A Systematic Review

Posted on by

R Duan et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 23: 45-58. Open Access! Antibiotic Exposure and Risk of New-Onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis

Twenty-eight studies involving 153,027 patients with IBD were included.

Key findings:

  • Antibiotic exposure was significantly associated with an increased risk of new-onset IBD for prescription-based studies (pooled OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.29–1.53) and for questionnaire-based studies (pooled OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08–1.68). ‘
  • This association existed for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as in children and adults for prescription-based studies. 

Some of the limitations:

  1. There was statistical heterogeneity was high in the primary analysis, possibly because of inconsistencies in study design
  2. Most studies included a clear lag time, yet an inadequate lag time still creates the possibility of reverse causality.
  3. The authors could not disentangle the risk of antibiotics from the risk of infection in leading to the development of IBD.
Nonlinear dose-response relationship between antibiotic exposure and risk of new-onset IBD (solid black line and short dash black line represent estimated ORs and corresponding 95% CIs of nonlinear relationship)

My take: This is another study showing an association between antibiotic use and new-onset IBD. While this study does not prove causation, it is another reason for good antibiotic stewardship.

Related blog posts:

Pivotal Study: Guselkumab Efficacy in Ulcerative Colitis (QUASAR study)

Posted on by

DT Rubin et al. Lancet 2024; 405: 33-49. Guselkumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (QUASAR): phase 3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled induction and maintenance studies

Background: “Guselkumab is a dual-acting, human IgG1, interleukin-23p19 subunit inhibitor that potently neutralises interleukin-23 and can bind to CD64.”

Methods:  “Two phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (QUASAR phase 3 induction and maintenance) included randomised and treated adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (induction baseline modified Mayo score from 5 to 9) with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional or advanced ulcerative colitis therapy.”

“The induction study primary population included 701 patients (guselkumab 200 mg given intravenously 60% [421 patients]; placebo 40% [280 patients]). The maintenance study primary population included 568 guselkumab induction responders randomly assigned to receive guselkumab 200 mg given subcutaneously every 4 weeks (190 [33%] patients) or 100 mg every 8 weeks (188 [33%] patients) or placebo (guselkumab withdrawal 190 [33%] patients).”

Key findings:

  • INDUCTION DATA AT 12 WEEKS:
At induction week 12
At induction week 12
Induction symptomatic endpoints -response noted in majority of guselkumab-treated patients by 4 weeks

MAINTENANCE DATA AT 44 WEEKS

Results and Discussion points:

  • “Symptomatic improvement was observed as early as induction week 1 (first assessed timepoint)”
  • “Greater reductions in C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin concentrations with guselkumab induction compared with placebo were observed as early as induction week 4 (first assessed timepoint)”
  • “Guselkumab efficacy was shown in both biologic naive and JAK inhibitor-naive patients, and in patients with a history of inadequate response or intolerance to biologics or JAK inhibitors”
  • “Overall, 34% (129 of 378) of patients in the guselkumab groups achieved endoscopic
    remission     at maintenance week 44. Among the 180 patients in the guselkumab groups in clinical remission at maintenance week 44, 124 (69%) of 180 were in endoscopic remission”
  • “Symptomatic remission and deep symptomatic remission achieved with guselkumab induction was generally maintained to maintenance week 44 with guselkumab relative to placebo”
  • “The incidences of anti-guselkumab antibodies and NAbs were low in both the induction and maintenance studies…titres were low and did not affect serum concentration, efficacy, or safety”
  • “Head-to-head comparison data with other IL-23 antagonists are currently not available”
  • “Safety results were consistent with the known and favourable safety profile of guselkumab in its approved indications. Rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation generally did not occur more frequently in patients treated with guselkumab versus placebo-treated patients”
  • Limitation: The primary analysis population for the maintenance study included only guselkumab induction responders following 12 weeks of intravenous treatment

My take: Overall, this is a pivotal study showing that guselkumab is an effective agent for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in those with and without prior treatments. More head-to-head studies are needed to determine the optimal positioning of therapies for UC. Currently, AGA guidelines (AGA Living Guideline for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis –The Good and The Bad) suggest that guselkumab should be considered in the top tier of medications used in patients naive to biologics/advanced therapies and in the second tier for those with prior biologic treatments.

Related blog posts:

Efficacy of Anthocyanin-Rich Extract in Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

L Beidermann et al. Nutrients. 2024;16(23):4197. Open Access! Efficacy and Safety of Anthocyanin-Rich Extract in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

First of all: Bilberries are similar to blueberries, but have red inner flesh rather than white flesh.

Background: The authors note that some small studies have shown that anthocyanin-rich extract (ACRE), the bioactive ingredient of bilberries, has been effective for ulcerative colitis (UC)

“ACs have been associated with many protective biological effects, including anti-oxidative, anti-carcinogenic, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties [17,20,21]. Due to their phenolic structure, ACs exhibit an anti-oxidative capacity in vivo as they scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS) [20,22], also a classical effect of 5-ASA [23]. After ingestion, ACs largely bypass absorption in the upper gastrointestinal tract, reaching the colon intact, where they are metabolized by microbiota through deglycosylation and further degraded into vanillic, protocatechuic, p-coumaric, gallic, and syringic acids (i.e., phenolic acids) [24]. ACs interrupt the pro-inflammatory signaling and are inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase, a key enzyme implicated in the arachidonic acid pathway for the biosynthesis of active leukotrienes.”

Methods: A multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study with a parallel group was conducted. Due to COVID-19’s effect on study enrollment, only 34 patients were randomized and only Eighteen ACRE and eight placebo patients could be analyzed (per protocol set)

Key finding:

  • Half (9/18) of ACRE patients and 3/8 of placebo patients responded clinically (p = 0.278). An improvement in the Mayo score was observed in the ACRE arm (77.8% vs. 62.5% placebo).
  • Fecal calprotectin (FC) dropped from 1049 ± 1139 to 557 ± 756 μg/g for ACRE but not for the placebo group (947 ± 1039 to 1040 ± 1179; p = 0.035).

The authors state that the placebo group had an unusually high response and that improved FC with ACRE patients indicates efficacy in UC.

Figure 2
Figure 3

My take: This is a negative study (despite the secondary finding of improved FC at some timepoints). Importantly, the study did not demonstrate any harms in the ACRE group. It did help me understand more about bilberries!

Related blog posts:

Efficacy of Mirikizumab in Ulcerative Colitis: LUCENT-3 Study Results

Posted on by

BESands, et al.  Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 2024. 30: 2024 2245–2258. Open Access! Two-Year Efficacy and Safety of Mirikizumab Following 104 Weeks of Continuous Treatment for Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the LUCENT-3 Open-Label Extension Study

In this LUCENT-3 study, the authors examined response at 2 years among patients who had response to treatment at 1 year; patients received 200 mg mirikizumab every 4 weeks. The authors stratified patients by induction response and by previous biologic exposure.

Key findings (from Figure 4):

HEMR= histologic-endoscopic mucosal remission
  • No new safety signals were identified, and the discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 2.8%

My take: It is good to see extended data for mirkizumab. Head-to-head trials, though, are needed to better determine which therapies are most effective.

Related blog posts:

Effects of Thiopurine Withdrawal in Randomized Trial of Vedolizumab-Treated Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

A Pudipeddi et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22: 2299-2308. Open Access! Effects of Thiopurine Withdrawal on Vedolizumab-Treated Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Methods: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial recruited UC patients (n=62) on vedolizumab 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks and a thiopurine. Patients in steroid-free clinical remission for ≥6 months and endoscopic remission/improvement (Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1) were randomized 2:1 to withdraw or continue thiopurine.

Key findings:

  •  At week 48, vedolizumab trough concentrations were not significantly different between continue and withdrawal groups (14.7 μg/mL versus 15.9 μg/mL, respectively, P = 0.36).
  • The continue group had significantly higher fecal calprotectin remission (calprotectin <150) (95.0%, 19/20 versus 71.4%, 30/42; P = .03), histologic remission (80.0%, 16/20 versus 48.6%, 18/37; P = .02), and histo-endoscopic remission (75.0%, 15/20 versus 32.4%, 12/37; P = .002) than the withdrawal group. Clinical and endoscopic remission favored the continue group though this did not reach statistical significance.
  • Histologic activity (hazard ratio [HR], 15.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6–146.5; P = .02) and prior anti-tumor necrosis factor exposure (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.3–33.8; P = .03) predicted clinical relapse after thiopurine withdrawal.

Discussion: “In Australia, requirements are for UC patients to have failed at least 3 months of an immunomodulator before vedolizumab initiation. Consequently, UC patients are typically on combination therapy initially, and hence this study was designed as a withdrawal trial.” The authors note that previous studies have not shown superior outcomes with combination therapy (See blog post: No Benefit of Combination Therapy with Ustekinumab or Vedolizumab). “However, methodological flaws, heterogenous outcomes, and shorter durations of treatment limit these findings.”

My take (borrowed from authors): “Thiopurines might provide an incremental benefit to patients with UC using vedolizumab, … independent of vedolizumab pharmacokinetics.”

Related study: C Yzet et al. Clin Gastroenerol Hepatol 2021; 19: 668-679. Full Text: No Benefit of Concomitant Immunomodulator Therapy on Efficacy of Biologics That Are Not Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Meta-analysis

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.

AGA Living Guideline for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis –The Good and The Bad

Posted on by

S Singh et al. Gastroenterol 2024; 167: 1307-1343. Open Access! AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis

This is a recent clinical guideline intended to serve as the starting point of a “living guideline” for adults with moderate-to severe ulcerative colitis.

  • The good news is that the AGA plans to update these guidelines semi-annually. The bad news is that this guideline does not provide the best advice.
  • It lumps recommended treatments into broad categories rather than indicating which therapies have the most effectiveness.
  • It is useful that the guidelines specifically recommend against step up therapy.
FDA labelling recommends upadacitinib only in patients who have not responded to anti-TNF therapy

For a recent study that provided more direction into which medications are most effective for both UC and Crohn’s disease: PS Dulai et al. Gastroenterol 2024; 166: 396-408. Open Access! Integrating Evidence to Guide Use of Biologics and Small Molecules for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (Summarized in blog post: Comparative Evidence and Positioning Advance Therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease)

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.

Frequency of Erythema Nodosum and Pyoderma Gangrenosum in 32,497 Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

MY Yousif et al. JPGN 2024; 79:1009–1016. Open Access! The association between erythema nodosum and pyoderma gangrenosum and pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Using the ImproveCareNow prospective registry, the authors analyzed a total of 285,913 visits from 32,497 patients aged ≤ 21 years.

Key findings:

  • The occurrence of erythema nodousm (EN) was 1.57% and the occurrence of pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) was 0.90%. Co-occurrence of EN and PG was reported in 0.30% patients.
  • Both EN and PG were associated (p < 0.0001) with worse intestinal disease, lower remission, higher inflammatory markers, and extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) arthritis and uveitis. 
  • Limitations: “imperfect and incomplete data entry that may introduce bias. However, due to the extensive longitudinal data, we expect any bias to be minimal.”

My take: This study clarifies how common these dermatologic findings occur in pediatric patients with IBD. Prompt recognition of these disorders is important. Recently, our group cared for a 20 yo patient with inadequately-treated PG by multiple internal medicine physicians; this led to prolonged hospitalization.

Related blog posts:

The Dancer by Auguste Renoir, National Gallery of Art

Phase 2 Trial of Tulisokibart for Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

Yesterday’s pumpkin -please no snide remarks about how I can now retire and become a sculptor:

BE Sands et al. N Engl J Med 2024;391:1119-1129. Phase 2 Trial of Anti-TL1A Monoclonal Antibody Tulisokibart for Ulcerative Colitis

Background: “Several studies have implicated human tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease…Tulisokibart (formerly PRA023) is a humanized IgG1 kappa monoclonal antibody that binds to the membrane-bound and soluble forms of TL1A with high affinity and specificity. Tulisokibart prevents the interaction of TL1A and DR3, thereby suppressing type 1 and type 17 helper T-cell responses, increasing regulatory T-cell activity, and decreasing profibrotic pathways.”

Methods: (ARTEMIS-UC trial) The authors “randomly assigned patients with glucocorticoid dependence or failure of conventional or advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis to receive intravenous tulisokibart (1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10) or placebo. Cohort 1 included patients regardless of status with respect to the test for likelihood of response. Cohort 2 included only patients with a positive test for likelihood of response.”

“The inclusion of an integrated assessment of a panel of genetic markers as a diagnostic assay was based on the notion that patients with a propensity to overexpress TL1A might be more likely to have a response to tulisokibart than an unselected population.”

Key findings:

  • In the first cohort, a significantly higher percentage of patients who received tulisokibart had clinical remission than those who received placebo (26% vs. 1%), endoscopic healing (31% vs. 4%), endoscopic improvement (37% vs 6%) and clinical response (66% vs 22%)
  • “Among patients with a positive test for likelihood of response (cohorts 1 and 2 combined), clinical remission occurred in a higher percentage of patients who received tulisokibart than in those who received placebo (32% vs. 11%).”
  • Improvement in CRP and Calprotectin were noted as early as 2 weeks and 6 weeks respectively
  • The incidence of adverse events was similar in the tulisokibart and placebo groups

My take: Tulisokibart was effective in a group of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who were refractory to advanced therapies.

Related blog posts: