ObjectiveIn newly diagnosed paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease (CD), infliximab (IFX) is initiated once exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN), corticosteroid and immunomodulator therapies have failed. We aimed to investigate whether starting first-line IFX (FL-IFX) is more effective to achieve and maintain remission than conventional treatment.DesignIn this multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial, untreated patients with a new diagnosis of CD (3–17 years old, weighted Paediatric CD Activity Index score (wPCDAI) >40) were assigned to groups that received five infusions of 5 mg/kg IFX at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14 and 22 (FL-IFX), or EEN or oral prednisolone (1 mg/kg, maximum 40 mg) (conventional). The primary outcome was clinical remission on azathioprine, defined as a wPCDAI <12.5 at week 52, without need for treatment escalation, using intention-to-treat analysis.Results100 patients were included, 50 in the FL-IFX group and 50 in the conventional group. Four patients did not receive treatment as per protocol. At week 10, a higher proportion of patients in the FL-IFX group than in the conventional group achieved clinical (59% vs 34%, respectively, p=0.021) and endoscopic remission (59% vs 17%, respectively, p=0.001). At week 52, the proportion of patients in clinical remission was not significantly different (p=0.421). However, 19/46 (41%) patients in the FL-IFX group were in clinical remission on azathioprine monotherapy without need for treatment escalation vs 7/48 (15%) in the conventional group (p=0.004).ConclusionsFL-IFX was superior to conventional treatment in achieving short-term clinical and endoscopic remission, and had greater likelihood of maintaining clinical remission at week 52 on azathioprine monotherapy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02517684).

Infliximab (IFX) is administered intravenously using weight-based dosing (5 mg/kg) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Our hypothesis is that especially young children need a more intensive treatment regimen than the current weight-based dose administration. We aimed to assess IFX pharmacokinetics (PK), based on existing therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) data in IBD patients < 10 years. TDM data were collected retrospectively in 14 centres. Children treated with IFX were included if IFX was started as IBD treatment at age < 10 years (young patients, YP) and PK data were available. Older IBD patients aged 10–18 years were used as controls (older patients, OP). Two hundred and fifteen paediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) patients were eligible for the study (110 < 10 year; 105 ≥ 10 years). Median age was 8.3 years (IQR 6.9–8.9) in YP compared with 14.3 years (IQR 12.8–15.6) in OP at the start of IFX. At the start of maintenance treatment, 72% of YP had trough levels below therapeutic range (< 5.4 μg/mL). After 1 year of scheduled IFX maintenance treatment, YP required a significantly higher dose per 8 weeks compared with OP (YP; 9.0 mg/kg (IQR 5.0–12.9) vs. OP; 5.5 mg/kg (IQR 5.0–9.3); p < 0.001). The chance to develop antibodies to infliximab was relatively lower in OP than YP (0.329 (95% CI − 1.2 to − 1.01); p < 0.001), while the overall duration of response to IFX was not significantly different (after 2 years 53% (n = 29) in YP vs. 58% (n = 45) in OP; p = 0.56).Conclusion: Intensification of the induction scheme is suggested for PIBD patients aged < 10 years. What is Known? •Infliximab trough levels of paediatric IBD patients are influenced by several factors as dosing scheme, antibodies and inflammatory markers.•In 4.5–30% of the paediatric IBD patients, infliximab treatment was stopped within the first year. What is New? •The majority of young PIBD (< 10 years) have inadequate IFX trough levels at the start of maintenance treatment.•Young PIBD patients (< 10 years) were in need of a more intensive treatment regimen compared with older paediatric patients during 1 year of IFX treatment.•The chance to develop antibodies to infliximab was relatively higher in young PIBD patients (< 10 years).

No abstract

Objectives: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can be successfully treated with vedolizumab. Studies in adult IBD patients have shown that differences in response to vedolizumab may be related to variability in vedolizumab trough levels, but in children with pediatric-onset IBD data regarding vedolizumab trough levels are not available. Thus far, the role of trough levels in pediatriconset IBD treatment remains unclear. We aimed to investigate predictors of vedolizumab trough levels in pediatric-onset IBD patients. Methods: Data from anti-tumor necrosis factor refractory pediatric-onset IBD patients who received vedolizumab were collected retrospectively. Vedolizumab trough levels were measured in serum samples collected before each infusion. A linear mixed model was conducted to analyze factors that influence trough levels. Results: Twenty-six pediatric-onset IBD patients (14 ulcerative colitis [UC]), 9 Crohn Disease [CD], 3 IBD-unclassified [IBD-U]) received 258 vedolizumab infusions. Mean vedolizumab trough level at week 6 was 29.9 mg/mL (SD 17.8), and 11.5 mg/mL (SD 4.9) during maintenance therapy. CD patients had significantly lower trough levels than IBD-U patients (b 15.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] À1.1 to 29.2; P ¼ 0.036). Higher fecal calprotectin (b À0.009; 95% CI À0.02 to À0.003; P ¼ 0.007) and C-reactive protein levels (b À0.4; 95% CI À0.72 to À0.04; P ¼ 0.027) were associated with lower trough levels, whereas shortening of time between infusions led to higher trough levels (b À0.77; 95% CI À0.9 to 0.64; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this group of pediatric-onset IBD patients, trough levels were significantly lower in CD patients compared with UC/IBD-U patients. Higher levels of inflammatory markers were associated with lower vedolizumab trough levels.

A follow-up study was performed in 33 patients with proven (ictal EEG-CCTV) psychogenic, non-epileptic seizures (PNES). These patients received a questionnaire to evaluate seizures, treatment and rehabilitation. The response group consisted of 21 females (80% response) and seven males (100% response). Follow-up after diagnosis varied from 23-67 months. Seven patients (25%) reported that seizures had ceased and of the patients not seizure-free seven did report a seizure-free period after diagnosis of an average 6.7 months. Eight patients were on antiepileptic drugs again. Of 13 patients referred for psychotherapy, who also did receive treatment, six became free of seizures and seven did not. Of seven patients also referred, but who did not receive psychotherapy, all continued to have seizures. On a self-rating scale to compare "overall function" at the time of diagnosis and follow-up, 75% considered themselves to have "improved", but no improvement could be detected in psychosocial functioning.