I-CARE, a European prospective cohort study assessing safety and effectiveness of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease

There is a need to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of current therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients to provide the best quality of care. The primary objective of I-CARE was to assess prospectively safety concerns in IBD, with specific focus on the risk of cancer/lymphoma and serious infections in patients treated with for anti-tumor necrosis factor and other biologics monotherapy as well as in combination with immunomodulators.I-CARE was designed as a European prospective longitudinal observational multicenter cohort study, to include patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or IBD unclassified established at least 3 months prior to enrollment.A total of 10,206 patients were enrolled between March 2016 and April 2019, including 6,169 (60.4%) patients with Crohn's disease, 3,853 (37.8%) with ulcerative colitis, and 184 (1.8%) with a diagnosis of IBD unclassified. Thirty-two percent of patients were receiving AZA/thiopurines, 4.6% 6-mercaptopurine, and 3.2% methotrexate at study entry. At inclusion, 47.3% of patients were treated with an anti-tumor necrosis factor agent, 8.8% with vedolizumab, and 3.4% with ustekinumab. Roughly one quarter of patients (26.8%) underwent prior IBD related surgery. Sixty-six % of patients had been previously treated with systemic steroids. Three percent of patients had a medical history of cancer prior to inclusion, and 1.1% had a history of colonic, esophageal or uterine cervix high-grade dysplasia.I-CARE is an ongoing investigator-initiated observational European prospective cohort study that will provide unique information on the long-term benefits and risks of biological therapies in IBD patients

Optimising monitoring in the management of Crohn's disease: a physician's perspective.

Management of Crohn's disease has traditionally placed high value on subjective symptom assessment; however, it is increasingly appreciated that patient symptoms and objective parameters of inflammation can be disconnected. Therefore, strategies that objectively monitor inflammatory activity should be utilised throughout the disease course to optimise patient management. Initially, a thorough assessment of the severity, location and extent of disease is needed to ensure a correct diagnosis, identify any complications, help assess prognosis and select appropriate therapy. During follow-up, clinical decision-making should be driven by disease activity monitoring, with the aim of optimising treatment for tight disease control. However, few data exist to guide the choice of monitoring tools and the frequency of their use. Furthermore, adaption of monitoring strategies for symptomatic, asymptomatic and post-operative patients has not been well defined. The Annual excHangE on the ADvances in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD Ahead) 2011 educational programme, which included approximately 600 gastroenterologists from 36 countries, has developed practice recommendations for the optimal monitoring of Crohn's disease based on evidence and/or expert opinion. These recommendations address the need to incorporate different modalities of disease assessment (symptom and endoscopic assessment, measurement of biomarkers of inflammatory activity and cross-sectional imaging) into robust monitoring. Furthermore, the importance of measuring and recording parameters in a standardised fashion to enable longitudinal evaluation of disease activity is highlighted.Peer reviewe

Effectiveness of third-class biologic treatment in crohn’s disease : A multi-center retrospective cohort study

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.Background: Multiple studies have described the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) failing anti-Tumor necrosis factors (TNFs); however, the effectiveness of VDZ or UST as a third-class biologic has not yet been described. Aims and Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of VDZ and UST as a third-class biologic in patients with CD. Results: Two-hundred and four patients were included; 156/204 (76%) patients received VDZ as a second-and UST as a third-class therapy (group A); the remaining 48/204 (24%) patients received UST as a second-and VDZ as a third-class therapy (group B). At week 16–22, 87/156 (55.5%) patients and 27/48 (56.2%) in groups A and B, respectively, responded to treatment (p = 0.9); 41/156 (26.2%) and 15/48 (31.2%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). At week 52; 89/103 (86%) patients and 25/29 (86.2%) of the patients with available data had responded to third-class treatment in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.9); 31/103 (30%) and 47/29 (24.1%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). Conclusion: Third-class biological therapy was effective in more than half of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of VDZ and UST as a third-class agent.Peer reviewe

Effectiveness of third-class biologic treatment in Crohn's disease : a multi-center retrospective cohort study

C