Our study proposes two clinically feasible assays, one in biopsy and one in blood, for predicting non-response to anti-TNFα therapy prior to initiation of treatment. Moreover, it suggests that mechanism-driven novel drugs for non-responders should be developed.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), specifically those treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)a biologics, are at high risk for vaccine-preventable infections. Their ability to mount adequate vaccine responses is unclear. The aim of the study was to assess serologic responses to messenger RNA-Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine, and safety profile, in patients with IBD stratified according to therapy, compared with healthy controls (HCs). METHODS: Prospective, controlled, multicenter Israeli study. Subjects enrolled received 2 BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) doses. Anti-Gastroenterology 2021;-:1-14 CLINICAL ATspike antibody levels and functional activity, anti-TNFa levels and adverse events (AEs) were detected longitudinally. RE-SULTS: Overall, 258 subjects: 185 IBD (67 treated with anti-TNFa, 118 non-anti-TNFa), and 73 HCs. After the first vaccine dose, all HCs were seropositive, whereas w7% of patients with IBD, regardless of treatment, remained seronegative. After the second dose, all subjects were seropositive, however anti-spike levels were significantly lower in anti-TNFa treated compared with non-anti-TNFa treated patients, and HCs (both P < .001). Neutralizing and inhibitory functions were both lower in anti-TNFa treated compared with non-anti-TNFa treated patients, and HCs (P < .03; P < .0001, respectively). Anti-TNFa drug levels and vaccine responses did not affect anti-spike levels. Infection rate (w2%) and AEs were comparable in all groups. IBD activity was unaffected by BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study in patients with IBD stratified according to treatment, all patients mounted serologic response to 2 doses of BNT162b2; however, its magnitude was significantly lower in patients treated with anti-TNFa, regardless of administration timing and drug levels. Vaccine was safe. As vaccine serologic response longevity in this group may be limited, vaccine booster dose should be considered.

No abstract

Summary Background Infliximab is effective as salvage therapy for patients with steroid refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Although current data suggest that the pharmacokinetics of infliximab are influenced by inflammatory burden in patients with acute severe UC, data comparing infliximab trough levels in patients with acute severe UC vs. moderately severe UC are scarce. Aim To compare infliximab trough and anti‐infliximab antibody levels at a standard fixed time‐point during induction between patients with acute severe and moderately severe UC. Methods A multi‐centre retrospective study comparing infliximab drug and antibody levels 14 days after the first infusion in hospitalised acute severe UC versus out‐patients with moderately severe UC was performed. Results Sixteen acute severe UC patients, hospitalised between 2010–2015 and refractory to intravenous corticosteroids, were treated with infliximab 5 mg/kg salvage therapy. They were compared to 16 moderately severe UC out‐patient controls. Mean infliximab trough levels at day 14 were significantly lower in patients with acute severe UC compared to moderately severe UC (7.15 ± 5.3 vs. 14.4 ± 11.2 μg/mL, P = 0.007). Seven patients (three acute severe and four moderate severe UC) were primary nonresponders to infliximab induction therapy. Infliximab level at day 14 did not differ between responders and nonresponders (9.8 ± 9 vs. 12.1 ± 10.6 μg/mL, respectively, P = N.S.). However, week 2 median antibody‐to‐infliximab levels were numerically higher among primary nonresponders (3.4 ± 5.7 vs. 1.2 ± 4 μg/mL‐eq, respectively, P = 0.06). Conclusions Infliximab trough levels at day 14 were lower in patients with acute severe UC compared to moderately severe UC, possibly due to a higher inflammatory burden and/or increased drug clearance. However, drug levels at day 14 were not lower among nonresponders compared with responders. Controlled trials are warranted to examine whether an a‐priori‐intensified infliximab induction protocol will lead to an improved outcome in acute severe UC.

No abstract

Silicone implants have been in use since the mid-twentieth century, especially in the field of reconstructive breast surgery, and have long been considered as biologically inert and harmless. However, growing body of evidence from the past two decades links silicone with subsequent autoimmunity-related complications, collectively known as autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant--ASIA. Previous data suggest that while some patients tend to develop post-exposure autoimmune phenomena such as ASIA, other do not. However, thus far, no criteria for risk stratification were suggested. This current review summarizes the data linking silicone implants and autoimmunity, suggesting means of defining individuals who are at increased risk to develop silicone-induced ASIA, and therefore, a recommendation was made to avoid silicone implantation, e.g., individuals with previously diagnosed autoimmune disorders or with genetic preponderance for hyperactive immune system should not be considered as candidates for silicone implantation.

The incidence of KC in Israel is high. The disparities in incidence trends between SCC, BCC and melanoma allude to their different aetiologies. These findings underscore the importance of continuous monitoring, education and prevention programmes in a growing high-risk population.

Background and Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a novel, hydrophilic, bioenhanced curcumin (BEC) as add-on therapy in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). Design: Mild to moderately active UC patients (partial Mayo score 2 to 6 with endoscopic Mayo score >1) on standard dose of mesalamine were randomized to either 50 mg twice daily BEC or an identical placebo. Clinical response (≥2 reduction of partial Mayo score), clinical remission (partial Mayo score ≤1), and endoscopic remission (endoscopic Mayo score of ≤1) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months. Responders were followed-up at 6 and 12 months for assessing maintenance of remission. Results: Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to BEC (n=34) and placebo (n=35). At 6 weeks, clinical and endoscopic remission occurred in 44.1% (15/34) and 35.3% (14/34) patients, respectively, compared with none in the placebo group (P<0.01). Clinical response was also significantly higher in the BEC group (18/34, 52.9%) compared with placebo (5/35, 14.3%) (P=0.001). The clinical remission, clinical response, and endoscopic remission rates at 3 months were 55.9% (19/34), 58.8% (20/34), 44% (16/34) and 5.7% (2/35), 28.6% (10/35), 5.7% (2/35) in BEC and placebo groups, respectively. At 6 and 12 months, 95% (18/19) and 84% (16/19) of the responders to BEC maintained clinical remission. None of the responders to placebo maintained clinical remission at 6 months. BEC appeared safe with no significant side effects. Conclusion: A low-dose BEC as add-on therapy was superior to placebo in inducing sustained clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderately active UC on maximal dose of mesalamine (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02683733).