Epithelial down-regulation of the miR-200 family in fibrostenosing Crohn's disease is associated with features of epithelial to mesenchymal transition

Intestinal mesenchymal cells deposit extracellular matrix in fibrotic Crohn's disease (CD). The contribution of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) to the mesenchymal cell pool in CD fibrosis remains obscure. The miR‐200 family regulates fibrosis‐related EMT in organs other than the gut. E‐cadherin, cytokeratin‐18 and vimentin expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry on paired strictured (SCD) and non‐strictured (NSCD) ileal CD resections and correlated with fibrosis grade. MiR‐200 expression was measured in paired SCD and NSCD tissue compartments using laser capture microdissection and RT‐qPCR. Serum miR‐200 expression was also measured in healthy controls and CD patients with stricturing and non‐stricturing phenotypes. Extra‐epithelial cytokeratin‐18 staining and vimentin‐positive epithelial staining were significantly greater in SCD samples (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03, respectively). Cytokeratin‐18 staining correlated positively with subserosal fibrosis (P < 0.001). Four miR‐200 family members were down‐regulated in fresh SCD samples (miR‐141, P = 0.002; miR‐200a, P = 0.002; miR‐200c, P = 0.001; miR‐429; P = 0.004); miR‐200 down‐regulation in SCD tissue was localised to the epithelium (P = 0.001‐0.015). The miR‐200 target ZEB1 was up‐regulated in SCD samples (P = 0.035). No difference in serum expression between patient groups was observed. Together, these observations suggest the presence of EMT in CD strictures and implicate the miR‐200 family as regulators. Functional studies to prove this relationship are now warranted

Ambulatory care management of 69 patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis in comparison to 695 inpatients: insights from a multicentre UK cohort study

Introduction Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) traditionally requires inpatient hospital management for intravenous therapies and/or colectomy. Ambulatory ASUC care has not yet been evaluated in large cohorts. Aims We used data from PROTECT, a UK multicentre observational COVID-19 inflammatory bowel disease study, to report the extent, safety and effectiveness of ASUC ambulatory pathways. Methods Adults (≥18 years old) meeting Truelove and Witts criteria between 1 January 2019-1 June 2019 and 1 March 2020-30 June 2020 were recruited to PROTECT. We used demographic, disease phenotype, treatment outcomes and 3-month follow-up data. Primary outcome was rate of colectomy during the index ASUC episode. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid response, time to and rate of rescue or primary induction therapy, response to rescue or primary induction therapy, time to colectomy, mortality, duration of inpatient treatment and hospital readmission and colectomy within 3 months of index flare. We compared outcomes in three cohorts: (1) patients treated entirely in inpatient setting; ambulatory patients subdivided into; (2) patients managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and (3) patients hospitalised and subsequently discharged to ambulatory care for continued intravenous steroids. Results 37% (22/60) participating hospitals used ambulatory pathways. Of 764 eligible patients, 695 (91%) patients received entirely inpatient care, 15 (2%) patients were managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and 54 (7%) patients were discharged to ambulatory pathways. Aside from younger age in patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis, no significant differences in disease or patient phenotype were observed. The rate of colectomy (15.0% (104/695) vs 13.3% (2/15) vs 13.0% (7/54), respectively, p=0.96) and secondary outcomes were similar among all three cohorts. Stool culture and flexible sigmoidoscopy were less frequently performed in ambulatory cohorts. Forty per cent of patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis required subsequent hospital admission. Conclusions In a post hoc analysis of one of the largest ASUC cohorts collected to date, we report an emerging UK ambulatory practice which challenges treatment paradigms. However, our analysis remains underpowered to detect key outcome measures and further studies exploring clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as patient and physician acceptability are needed. Trial registration number NCT04411784

Original article title: "Comparison of therapeutic efficacy of topical corticosteroid and oral zinc sulfate-topical corticosteroid combination in the treatment of vitiligo patients: a clinical trial"

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vitiligo is the most prevalent pigmentary disorder which occurs worldwide, with an incidence rate between 0.1-4 percent. It is anticipated that the discovery of biological pathways of vitiligo pathogenesis will provide novel therapeutic and prophylactic targets for future approaches to the treatment and prevention of vitiligo. The purposes of this study were evaluating the efficacy of supplemental zinc on the treatment of vitiligo.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This randomized clinical trial was conducted for a period of one year. Thirty five patients among 86 participants were eligible to entrance to the study. The patients in two equal randomized groups took topical corticosteroid and combination of oral zinc sulfate-topical corticosteroid.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean of responses in the corticosteroid group and the zinc sulfate-corticosteroid combination group were 21.43% and 24.7%, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although, the response to corticosteroid plus zinc sulfate was more than corticosteroid, there was no statistically significant difference between them. It appeared that more robust long-term randomized controlled trials on more patients, maybe with higher doses of zinc sulfate, are needed to fully establish the efficacy of oral zinc in management of vitiligo.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>chiCTRTRC10000930</p

Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with IBD.

OBJECTIVE: Delayed second dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination trades maximal effectiveness for a lower level of immunity across more of the population. We investigated whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab have attenuated serological responses to a single dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. DESIGN: Antibody responses and seroconversion rates in infliximab-treated patients (n=865) were compared with a cohort treated with vedolizumab (n=428), a gut-selective anti-integrin α4β7 monoclonal antibody. Our primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody concentrations, measured using the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody assay 3-10 weeks after vaccination, in patients without evidence of prior infection. Secondary outcomes were seroconversion rates (defined by a cut-off of 15 U/mL), and antibody responses following past infection or a second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. RESULTS: Geometric mean (SD) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following BNT162b2 (6.0 U/mL (5.9) vs 28.8 U/mL (5.4) p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4.7 U/mL (4.9)) vs 13.8 U/mL (5.9) p<0.0001) vaccines. In our multivariable models, antibody concentrations were lower in infliximab-treated compared with vedolizumab-treated patients who received the BNT162b2 (fold change (FC) 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.40), p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC 0.39 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.51), p<0.0001) vaccines. In both models, age ≥60 years, immunomodulator use, Crohn's disease and smoking were associated with lower, while non-white ethnicity was associated with higher, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations. Seroconversion rates after a single dose of either vaccine were higher in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection, or a second dose of vaccine, led to seroconversion in most patients. Delayed second dosing should be avoided in patients treated with infliximab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses are attenuated in patients with IBD treated with infliximab.

OBJECTIVE: Antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs impair protective immunity following pneumococcal, influenza and viral hepatitis vaccination and increase the risk of serious respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether infliximab-treated patients with IBD have attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infections. DESIGN: Antibody responses in participants treated with infliximab were compared with a reference cohort treated with vedolizumab, a gut-selective anti-integrin α4β7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired vaccine responses or increased susceptibility to systemic infections. 6935 patients were recruited from 92 UK hospitals between 22 September and 23 December 2020. RESULTS: Rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar between groups. Seroprevalence was lower in infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (3.4% (161/4685) vs 6.0% (134/2250), p<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analyses confirmed that infliximab (vs vedolizumab; OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.87), p=0.0027) and immunomodulator use (OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92), p=0.012) were independently associated with lower seropositivity. In patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroconversion was observed in fewer infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (48% (39/81) vs 83% (30/36), p=0.00044) and the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was lower (median 0.8 cut-off index (0.2-5.6) vs 37.0 (15.2-76.1), p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is associated with attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 that were further blunted by immunomodulators used as concomitant therapy. Impaired serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection might have important implications for global public health policy and individual anti-TNF-treated patients. Serological testing and virus surveillance should be considered to detect suboptimal vaccine responses, persistent infection and viral evolution to inform public health policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Enteral Nutrition in Adult Crohn’s Disease: Toward a Paradigm Shift

Medical and surgical treatments for Crohn&rsquo;s disease are associated with toxic effects. Medical therapy aims for mucosal healing and is achievable with biologics, immunosuppressive therapy, and specialised enteral nutrition, but not with corticosteroids. Sustained remission remains a therapeutic challenge. Enteral nutrition, containing macro- and micro-nutrients, is nutritionally complete, and is provided in powder or liquid form. Enteral nutrition is a low-risk and minimally invasive therapy. It is well-established and recommended as first line induction therapy in paediatric Crohn&rsquo;s disease with remission rates of up to 80%. Other than in Japan, enteral nutrition is not routinely used in the adult population among Western countries, mainly due to unpalatable formulations which lead to poor compliance. This study aims to offer a comprehensive review of available enteral nutrition formulations and the literature supporting the use and mechanisms of action of enteral nutrition in adult Crohn&rsquo;s disease patients, in order to support clinicians in real world decision-making when offering/accepting treatment. The mechanisms of actions of enteral feed, including their impact on the gut microbiome, were explored. Barriers to the use of enteral nutrition, such as compliance and the route of administration, were considered. All available enteral preparations have been comprehensively described as a practical guide for clinical use. Likewise, guidelines are reported and discussed