Comparison of Different Strategies for Providing Fecal Microbiota Transplantation to Treat Patients with Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in Two English Hospitals: A Review

Fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) has emerged as a highly efficacious treatment for difficult cases of refractory and/or recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). There have been many well-conducted randomized controlled trials and thousands of patients reported in case series that describe success rates of approximately 90% following one or more FMT. Although the exact mechanisms of FMT have yet to be fully elucidated, replacement or restoration of a ‘normal’ microbiota (or at least a microbiota resembling those who have never had CDI) appears to have a positive effect on the gut dysbiosis that is thought to exist in these patients. Furthermore, despite being aesthetically unappealing, this ‘ultimate probiotic’ is a particularly attractive solution to a difficult problem that avoids repeated courses of antibiotics. The lack of clarity about the exact mechanism of action and the ‘active ingredient’ of FMT (e.g., individual or communities of bacteria, bacteriophage, or bioactive molecules such as bile acids) has hindered the ability to produce a standardized and well-characterized FMT product. There is no standard method to produce material for FMT, and there are a multitude of factors that can vary between institutions that offer this therapy. Only a few studies have directly compared clinical efficacy in groups of patients who have been treated with FMT prepared differently (e.g., fresh vs. frozen) or administered by different route (e.g., by nasojejunal tube, colonoscopy or by oral administration of encapsulated product). More of these studies should be undertaken to clarify the superiority or otherwise of these variables. This review describes the methods and protocols that two English NHS hospitals independently adopted over the same time period to provide FMT for patients with recurrent CDI. There are several fundamental differences in the methods used, including selection and testing of donors, procedures for preparation and storage of material, and route of administration. These methods are described in detail in this review highlighting differing practice. Despite these significant methodological variations, clinical outcomes in terms of cure rate appear to be remarkably similar for both FMT providers. Although both hospitals have treated only modest numbers of patients, these findings suggest that many of the described differences may not be critical factors in influencing the success of the procedure. As FMT is increasingly being proposed for a number of conditions other than CDI, harmonization of methods and techniques may be more critical to the success of FMT, and thus it will be important to standardize these as far as practically possible

Effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients aged 60 and over: an observational multicenter UK experience.

BACKGROUND: The GEMINI trials established the efficacy of vedolizumab in moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and demonstrated a favorable safety profile, suggesting it may be advantageous in older patients at greater risk of treatment-related complications. However, there is a paucity of data exploring the outcomes of vedolizumab in this group. Our objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in older IBD patients within a real-world multicenter UK cohort. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic records across 6 UK hospitals was undertaken to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety outcomes of vedolizumab in IBD patients aged ≥60 at start of therapy. Rates of clinical response, remission and corticosteroid-free remission were assessed at weeks 14 and 52, using validated clinical indices, and were compared to historical controls from real-world vedolizumab-treated cohorts unstratified by age. RESULTS: Of 74 patients aged 60 years or above (median 66 years), 48 were included in our effectiveness analysis (29 ulcerative colitis, 19 Crohn's disease). Rates of clinical response, remission and corticosteroid-free remission at week 14 were 64%, 48% and 30%, respectively. By week 52, the rates of clinical response, remission, and corticosteroid-free remission were 52%, 38%, and 32%, respectively. Six (8%) patients experienced adverse effects. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were comparable to those of age-unstratified vedolizumab-treated cohorts. CONCLUSION: Our 1-year outcome data suggests that vedolizumab is safe and effective in older IBD patients and broadly comparable to cohorts unselected by age

COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory bowel disease (VIP): a multicentre, prospective, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The effects that therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have on immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are not yet fully known. Therefore, we sought to determine whether COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses were altered in patients with IBD on commonly used immunosuppressive drugs. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, case-control study (VIP), we recruited adults with IBD treated with one of six different immunosuppressive treatment regimens (thiopurines, infliximab, a thiopurine plus infliximab, ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib) and healthy control participants from nine centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and had received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines (either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [Oxford-AstraZeneca], BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], or mRNA1273 [Moderna]) 6-12 weeks apart (according to scheduling adopted in the UK). We measured antibody responses 53-92 days after a second vaccine dose using the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, adjusted by age and vaccine type, and was analysed by use of multivariable linear regression models. This study is registered in the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN13495664, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between May 31 and Nov 24, 2021, we recruited 483 participants, including patients with IBD being treated with thiopurines (n=78), infliximab (n=63), a thiopurine plus infliximab (n=72), ustekinumab (n=57), vedolizumab (n=62), or tofacitinib (n=30), and 121 healthy controls. We included 370 participants without evidence of previous infection in our primary analysis. Geometric mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab (156·8 U/mL [geometric SD 5·7]; p<0·0001), infliximab plus thiopurine (111·1 U/mL [5·7]; p<0·0001), or tofacitinib (429·5 U/mL [3·1]; p=0·0012) compared with controls (1578·3 U/mL [3·7]). There were no significant differences in antibody concentrations between patients treated with thiopurine monotherapy (1019·8 U/mL [4·3]; p=0·74), ustekinumab (582·4 U/mL [4·6]; p=0·11), or vedolizumab (954·0 U/mL [4·1]; p=0·50) and healthy controls. In multivariable modelling, lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations were independently associated with infliximab (geometric mean ratio 0·12, 95% CI 0·08-0·17; p<0·0001) and tofacitinib (0·43, 0·23-0·81; p=0·0095), but not with ustekinumab (0·69, 0·41-1·19; p=0·18), thiopurines (0·89, 0·64-1·24; p=0·50), or vedolizumab (1·16, 0·74-1·83; p=0·51). mRNA vaccines (3·68, 2·80-4·84; p<0·0001; vs adenovirus vector vaccines) were independently associated with higher antibody concentrations and older age per decade (0·79, 0·72-0·87; p<0·0001) with lower antibody concentrations. INTERPRETATION: For patients with IBD, the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines varies according to immunosuppressive drug exposure, and is attenuated in recipients of infliximab, infliximab plus thiopurines, and tofacitinib. Scheduling of third primary, or booster, doses could be personalised on the basis of an individual's treatment, and patients taking anti-tumour necrosis factor and tofacitinib should be prioritised. FUNDING: Pfizer

Antibody responses to Influenza vaccination are diminished in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on infliximab or tofacitinib

Background and Aims: We sought to determine whether six commonly used immunosuppressive regimens were associated with lower antibody responses after seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. Methods: We conducted a prospective study including 213 IBD patients and 53 healthy controls: 165 who had received seasonal influenza vaccine and 101 who had not. IBD medications included infliximab, thiopurines, infliximab and thiopurine combination therapy, ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib. The primary outcome was antibody responses against influenza/A H3N2 and A/H1N1, compared to controls, adjusting for age, prior vaccination, and interval between vaccination and sampling. Results: Lower antibody responses against influenza A/H3N2 were observed in patients on infliximab (geometric mean ratio 0.35 [95% confidence interval 0.20–0.60], p = 0.0002), combination of infliximab and thiopurine therapy (0.46 [0.27–0.79], p = 0.0050), and tofacitinib (0.28 [0.14–0.57], p = 0.0005) compared to controls. Lower antibody responses against A/H1N1 were observed in patients on infliximab (0.29 [0.15–0.56], p = 0.0003), combination of infliximab and thiopurine therapy (0.34 [0.17–0.66], p = 0.0016), thiopurine monotherapy (0.46 [0.24–0.87], p = 0.017), and tofacitinib (0.23 [0.10–0.56], p = 0.0013). Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were not associated with reduced antibody responses against A/H3N2 or A/H1N1. Vaccination in the previous year was associated with higher antibody responses to A/H3N2. Vaccine-induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentration weakly correlated with antibodies against H3N2 [r = 0.27; p = 0.0004] and H1N1 [r = 0.33; p < 0.0001]. Conclusions: Vaccination in both the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 seasons was associated with significantly higher antibody responses to influenza/A than no vaccination or vaccination in 2021–2022 alone. Infliximab and tofacitinib are associated with lower binding antibody responses to influenza/A, similar to COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses

Appropriate Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Biologic Agents for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is widely available for biologic therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We reviewed current data and provided expert opinion regarding the clinical utility of TDM for biologic therapies in IBD. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi method to establish consensus. A comprehensive literature review was performed regarding the use of TDM of biologic therapy in IBD and presented to international IBD specialists. Subsequently, 28 statements on the application of TDM in clinical practice were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree) by each of the panellists. Statements were accepted if 80% or more of the participants agreed with a score ≥7. The remaining statements were discussed and revised based on the available evidence followed by a second round of voting. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 24 (86%) statements. For anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, proactive TDM was found to be appropriate after induction and at least once during maintenance therapy, but this was not the case for the other biologics. Reactive TDM was appropriate for all agents both for primary non-response and secondary loss of response. The panellists also agreed on several statements regarding TDM and appropriate drug and anti-drug antibody (ADA) concentration thresholds for biologics in specific clinical scenarios. CONCLUSION: Consensus was achieved towards the utility of TDM of biologics in IBD, particularly anti-TNF therapies. More data are needed especially on non-anti-TNF biologics to further define optimal drug concentration and ADA thresholds as these can vary depending on the therapeutic outcomes assessed

British Society of Gastroenterology guidance for management of inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting unprecedented pressures on healthcare systems globally. Early insights have been made possible by rapid sharing of data from China and Italy. In the UK, we have rapidly mobilised inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centres in order that preparations can be made to protect our patients and the clinical services they rely on. This is a novel coronavirus; much is unknown as to how it will affect people with IBD. We also lack information about the impact of different immunosuppressive medications. To address this uncertainty, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) COVID-19 IBD Working Group has used the best available data and expert opinion to generate a risk grid that groups patients into highest, moderate and lowest risk categories. This grid allows patients to be instructed to follow the UK government's advice for shielding, stringent and standard advice regarding social distancing, respectively. Further considerations are given to service provision, medical and surgical therapy, endoscopy, imaging and clinical trials

A biomarker-stratified comparison of top-down versus accelerated step-up treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease (PROFILE):a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial

Background: Management strategies and clinical outcomes vary substantially in patients newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease. We evaluated the use of a putative prognostic biomarker to guide therapy by assessing outcomes in patients randomised to either top-down (ie, early combined immunosuppression with infliximab and immunomodulator) or accelerated step-up (conventional) treatment strategies. Methods: PROFILE (PRedicting Outcomes For Crohn's disease using a moLecular biomarker) was a multicentre, open-label, biomarker-stratified, randomised controlled trial that enrolled adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease (Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≥7, either elevated C-reactive protein or faecal calprotectin or both, and endoscopic evidence of active inflammation). Potential participants had blood drawn to be tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures (PredictSURE-IBD assay). Following testing, patients were randomly assigned, via a secure online platform, to top-down or accelerated step-up treatment stratified by biomarker subgroup (IBDhi or IBDlo), endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other). Blinding to biomarker status was maintained throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits. Flare required active symptoms (HBI ≥5) plus raised inflammatory markers (CRP &gt;upper limit of normal or faecal calprotectin ≥200 μg/g, or both), while remission was the converse—ie, quiescent symptoms (HBI &lt;5) or resolved inflammatory markers (both CRP ≤ the upper limit of normal and calprotectin &lt;200 μg/g) or both. Analyses were done in the full analysis (intention-to-treat) population. The trial has completed and is registered (ISRCTN11808228). Findings: Between Dec 29, 2017, and Jan 5, 2022, 386 patients (mean age 33·6 years [SD 13·2]; 179 [46%] female, 207 [54%] male) were randomised: 193 to the top-down group and 193 to the accelerated step-up group. Median time from diagnosis to trial enrolment was 12 days (range 0–191). Primary outcome data were available for 379 participants (189 in the top-down group; 190 in the accelerated step-up group). There was no biomarker–treatment interaction effect (absolute difference 1 percentage points, 95% CI –15 to 15; p=0·944). Sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (149 [79%] of 189 patients vs 29 [15%] of 190 patients, absolute difference 64 percentage points, 95% CI 57 to 72; p&lt;0·0001). There were fewer adverse events (including disease flares) and serious adverse events in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (adverse events: 168 vs 315; serious adverse events: 15 vs 42), with fewer complications requiring abdominal surgery (one vs ten) and no difference in serious infections (three vs eight). Interpretation: Top-down treatment with combination infliximab plus immunomodulator achieved substantially better outcomes at 1 year than accelerated step-up treatment. The biomarker did not show clinical utility. Top-down treatment should be considered standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease. Funding: Wellcome and PredictImmune Ltd.</p

HLA-DQA1*05 carriage associated with development of anti-drug antibodies to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn's Disease

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies are the most widely used biologic drugs for treating immune-mediated diseases, but repeated administration can induce the formation of anti-drug antibodies. The ability to identify patients at increased risk for development of anti-drug antibodies would facilitate selection of therapy and use of preventative strategies.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on Publisher URL to access the full-text

Safety and efficacy of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation with low-dose cyclophosphamide mobilisation and reduced intensity conditioning versus standard of care in refractory Crohn's disease (ASTIClite): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: A previous controlled trial of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with refractory Crohn's disease did not meet its primary endpoint and reported high toxicity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity versus standard of care in this patient population. Methods: This open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial was conducted in nine National Health Service hospital trusts across the UK. Adults (aged 18–60 years) with active Crohn's disease on endoscopy (Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD] ulcer sub-score of ≥2) refractory to two or more classes of biological therapy, with no perianal or intra-abdominal sepsis or clinically significant comorbidity, were recruited. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) to either HSCT with a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (intervention group) or standard care (control group). Randomisation was stratified by trial site by use of random permuted blocks of size 3 and 6. Patients in the intervention group underwent stem-cell mobilisation (cyclophosphamide 1 g/m2 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) 5 μg/kg) and stem-cell harvest (minimum 2·0 × 106 CD34+ cells per kg), before conditioning (fludarabine 125 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg, and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin [thymoglobulin] 7·5 mg/kg in total) and subsequent stem-cell reinfusion supported by G-CSF. Patients in the control group continued any available conventional, biological, or nutritional therapy. The primary outcome was absence of endoscopic ulceration (SES-CD ulcer sub-score of 0) without surgery or death at week 48, analysed in the intention-to-treat population by central reading. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 17160440. Findings: Between Oct 18, 2018, and Nov 8, 2019, 49 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 23 (47%) were randomly assigned: 13 (57%) to the intervention group and ten (43%) to the control group. In the intervention group, ten (77%) participants underwent HSCT and nine (69%) reached 48-week follow-up; in the control group, nine (90%) reached 48-week follow-up. The trial was halted in response to nine reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions in six (46%) patients in the intervention group, including renal failure due to proven thrombotic microangiopathy in three participants and one death due to pulmonary veno-occlusive disease. At week 48, absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death was reported in three (43%) of seven participants in the intervention group and in none of six participants in the control group with available data. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the intervention group (38 in 13 [100%] patients) than in the control group (16 in four [40%] patients). A second patient in the intervention group died after week 48 of respiratory and renal failure. Interpretation: Although HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity decreased endoscopic disease activity, significant adverse events deem this regimen unsuitable for future clinical use in patients with refractory Crohn's disease. Funding: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership

Thiopurine monotherapy is effective in ulcerative colitis but significantly less so in Crohn’s disease: long-term outcomes for 11 928 patients in the UK inflammatory bowel disease bioresource

Objective: Thiopurines are widely used as maintenance therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but the evidence base for their use is sparse and their role increasingly questioned. Using the largest series reported to date, we assessed the long-term effectiveness of thiopurines in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), including their impact on need for surgery. Design: Outcomes were assessed in 11 928 patients (4968 UC, 6960 CD) in the UK IBD BioResource initiated on thiopurine monotherapy with the intention of maintaining medically induced remission. Effectiveness was assessed retrospectively using patient-level data and a definition that required avoidance of escalation to biological therapy or surgery while on thiopurines. Analyses included overall effectiveness, time-to-event analysis for treatment escalation and comparison of surgery rates in patients tolerant or intolerant of thiopurines. Results: Using 68 132 patient-years of exposure, thiopurine monotherapy appeared effective for the duration of treatment in 2617/4968 (52.7%) patients with UC compared with 2378/6960 (34.2%) patients with CD (p<0.0001). This difference was corroborated in a multivariable analysis: after adjusting for variables including treatment era, thiopurine monotherapy was less effective in CD than UC (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.51, p<0.0001). Thiopurine intolerance was associated with increased risk of surgery in UC (HR 2.44, p<0.0001); with a more modest impact on need for surgery in CD (HR=1.23, p=0.0015). Conclusion: Thiopurine monotherapy is an effective long-term treatment for UC but significantly less effective in CD