Background and Aim Ustekinumab is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD). Italian real‐life data are scarce, so the aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in an Italian cohort of CD patients. Methods Data of patients with CD who started using ustekinumab were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Primary end‐points were steroid‐free clinical remission at 8, 24, and 52 weeks of therapy and reduction of C‐reactive protein. Secondary end‐points were treatment response, treatment persistence at 12 months, and safety. Results A total of 131 patients (males 56%; mean age 46 years ±15) were included. All patients were biologics experienced except for one. At 24 and 52 weeks, 40% and 43% of patients achieved steroid‐free clinical remission, and 64% and 62% had clinical response, respectively. At the end of follow‐up, there was a significant reduction of steroid use (P = 0.012) and of the Harvey‐Bradshaw Index (P = 0.001). The probability of persistence in therapy with ustekinumab after 12 months of treatment was 89%. The only factor associated with discontinuation was older age. Conclusions Data from our real‐life cohort of treatment‐refractory CD patients suggest the satisfactory effectiveness and safety profile of ustekinumab.

INTRODUCTION:The use of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as second-line therapies in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in which tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) failed is still debated. The aim of this study was to compare, in a large multicenter observational retrospective cohort, the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as second-line therapies, as assessed by clinical and objective outcomes including endoscopy and gastrointestinal imaging.METHODS:Clinical response, remission, and steroid-free remission at weeks 26 and 52 were evaluated in a retrospective propensity score–weighted and propensity score–matched cohort of patients in which TNFi failed. Objective response and remission were evaluated by 1 or more techniques among endoscopy, magnetic resonance/computed tomography enteroclysis, and small bowel ultrasound.RESULTS:A total of 470 patients with CD (239 treated with ustekinumab and 231 treated with vedolizumab) were included in the study. At week 26, clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. At week 52, clinical remission (ustekinumab 42.5% vs vedolizumab 55.5%, P = 0.01) and steroid-free remission (ustekinumab 40.6% vs vedolizumab 51.1%, P = 0.038) rates were significantly higher in vedolizumab-treated patients. Three hundred two patients (hundred thirty-five treated with ustekinumab and hundred sixty-seven treated with vedolizumab) had an objective evaluation of disease activity at baseline and week 52. At week 52, objective response and remission rates were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical response at week 26 predicted steroid-free remission at week 52 in both ustekinumab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients. Safety profiles were similar between the 2 groups.DISCUSSION:In patients with CD in which TNFi failed, both ustekinumab and vedolizumab showed similar clinical effectiveness after 26 weeks of treatment. At 1 year, vedolizumab was associated with a higher rate of clinical remission when compared with ustekinumab. However, no difference was observed between the 2 groups when objective outcomes were investigated at this time point.

No abstract

During past years, the increasing knowledge of molecular mechanisms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have led to the development of several targeted biological therapies. This great expansion of available medical options has prompted the need for comparative data between drugs. For years, given that most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed only versus placebo, this demand has clashed with the absence of head-to-head trials comparing two or more treatments. The quality of evidence coming from real-world experience was low overall, so it was extremely difficult to clarify the correct positioning of the biologicals inside the therapeutic algorithms for IBD. Fortunately, times are changing: head-to-head comparative RCTs have been conducted or are ongoing, and the methodological quality of real-world studies is gradually increasing, mainly thanks to a higher rate of application of statistical methods capable of reducing the selection bias, such as the propensity score. In this evolving scenario, the increasing number of comparative RCTs is providing high-quality data for a correct drug positioning in IBD. In parallel, real-world observational studies are supporting the data coming from RCTs, and covering those comparisons not performed in the RCT setting. We believe that there is moderate evidence already available to support clinicians in the correct choice between different biologicals, and data will certainly be more robust in the near future.

No abstract

Background We evaluated an on-demand ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) infusion strategy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Aims The primary outcome was the response rate to single or multiple FCM infusions after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the response rate to a single FCM infusion after 3 months and the FCM safety profile. Methods We retrospectively included 185 IBD patients who received at least one FCM infusion of 500 mg, between 2015 and 2018. FCM was administered to patients with Hb ≤10 g/dL and hypoferritinemia and repeated according to the physician’s assessment. Complete response (CR) was defined as Hb ≥12 g/dL (≥13 g/dL for men) or Hb increase ≥2 g/dL. Partial response (PR) was defined as an Hb increase between 1 and 2 g/dL. A univariate analysis was performed at 3 and 12 months. Results After 12 months, the response rate was 75.1% (CR, 48.6%; PR, 26.4%; mean number of FCM infusions, 1.7 ± 1.1). In total 169/185 patients received a single FCM infusion during the first 3 months and 79.2% achieved response (CR, 56.8%; PR, 22.4%). At univariate analysis, no variable was associated with response. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions An on-demand strategy was effective and well-tolerated in treating IDA in IBD patients.

No abstract

No abstract