Performance of Screening Strategies for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results from the ENEIDA Registry of GETECCU

(1) Aims: Patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy are at risk of developing tuberculosis (TB), usually due to the reactivation of a latent TB infection (LTBI). LTBI screening and treatment decreases the risk of TB. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of different LTBI screening strategies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). (2) Methods: Patients in the Spanish ENEIDA registry with IBD screened for LTBI between January 2003 and January 2018 were included. The diagnostic yield of different strategies (dual screening with tuberculin skin test [TST] and interferon-gamma-release assay [IGRA], two-step TST, and early screening performed at least 12 months before starting biological treatment) was analyzed. (3) Results: Out of 7594 screened patients, 1445 (19%; 95% CI 18-20%) had LTBI. Immunomodulator (IMM) treatment at screening decreased the probability of detecting LTBI (20% vs. 17%, p = 0.001). Regarding screening strategies, LTBI was more frequently diagnosed by dual screening than by a single screening strategy (IGRA, OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.50-0.73, p < 0.001; TST, OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66-0.88, p < 0.001). Two-step TST increased the diagnostic yield of a single TST by 24%. More cases of LTBI were diagnosed by early screening than by routine screening before starting anti-TNF agents (21% [95% CI 20-22%] vs. 14% [95% CI 13-16%], p < 0.001). The highest diagnostic performance for LTBI (29%) was obtained by combining early and TST/IGRA dual screening strategies in patients without IMM. (4): Conclusions: Both early screening and TST/IGRA dual screening strategies significantly increased diagnostic performance for LTBI in patients with IBD, with optimal performance achieved when they are used together in the absence of IMM

Effectiveness and Safety of the Sequential Use of a Second and Third Anti-TNF Agent in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From the Eneida Registry

Background: The effectiveness of the switch to another anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent is not known. The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of treatment with a second and third anti-TNF drug after intolerance to or failure of a previous anti-TNF agent in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Methods: We included patients diagnosed with IBD from the ENEIDA registry who received another anti-TNF after intolerance to or failure of a prior anti-TNF agent. Results: A total of 1122 patients were included. In the short term, remission was achieved in 55% of the patients with the second anti-TNF. The incidence of loss of response was 19% per patient-year with the second anti-TNF. Combination therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3; P < 0.0001) and ulcerative colitis vs Crohn's disease (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = 0.005) were associated with a higher probability of loss of response. Fifteen percent of the patients had adverse events, and 10% had to discontinue the second anti-TNF. Of the 71 patients who received a third anti-TNF, 55% achieved remission. The incidence of loss of response was 22% per patient-year with a third anti-TNF. Adverse events occurred in 7 patients (11%), but only 1 stopped the drug. Conclusions: Approximately half of the patients who received a second anti-TNF achieved remission; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response. Combination therapy and type of IBD were associated with loss of response. Remission was achieved in almost 50% of patients who received a third anti-TNF; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response

Risk Factors for COVID-19 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A National, ENEIDA-Based Case–Control Study (COVID-19-EII)

(1) Scant information is available concerning the characteristics that may favour the acquisition of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess these differences between infected and noninfected patients with IBD. (2) This nationwide case-control study evaluated patients with inflammatory bowel disease with COVID-19 (cases) and without COVID-19 (controls) during the period March-July 2020 included in the ENEIDA of GETECCU. (3) A total of 496 cases and 964 controls from 73 Spanish centres were included. No differences were found in the basal characteristics between cases and controls. Cases had higher comorbidity Charlson scores (24% vs. 19%; p = 0.02) and occupational risk (28% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001) more frequently than did controls. Lockdown was the only protective measure against COVID-19 (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.0001). No differences were found in the use of systemic steroids, immunosuppressants or biologics between cases and controls. Cases were more often treated with 5-aminosalicylates (42% vs. 34%; p = 0.003). Having a moderate Charlson score (OR: 2.7; 95%CI: 1.3-5.9), occupational risk (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.8-4.4) and the use of 5-aminosalicylates (OR: 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2-2.5) were factors for COVID-19. The strict lockdown was the only protective factor (OR: 0.1; 95%CI: 0.09-0.2). (4) Comorbidities and occupational exposure are the most relevant factors for COVID-19 in patients with IBD. The risk of COVID-19 seems not to be increased by immunosuppressants or biologics, with a potential effect of 5-aminosalicylates, which should be investigated further and interpreted with caution

Immigrant IBD Patients in Spain Are Younger, Have More Extraintestinal Manifestations and Use More Biologics Than Native Patients

BackgroundPrevious studies comparing immigrant ethnic groups and native patients with IBD have yielded clinical and phenotypic differences. To date, no study has focused on the immigrant IBD population in Spain. MethodsProspective, observational, multicenter study comparing cohorts of IBD patients from ENEIDA-registry who were born outside Spain with a cohort of native patients. ResultsWe included 13,524 patients (1,864 immigrant and 11,660 native). The immigrants were younger (45 +/- 12 vs. 54 +/- 16 years, p < 0.001), had been diagnosed younger (31 +/- 12 vs. 36 +/- 15 years, p < 0.001), and had a shorter disease duration (14 +/- 7 vs. 18 +/- 8 years, p < 0.001) than native patients. Family history of IBD (9 vs. 14%, p < 0.001) and smoking (30 vs. 40%, p < 0.001) were more frequent among native patients. The most prevalent ethnic groups among immigrants were Caucasian (41.5%), followed by Latin American (30.8%), Arab (18.3%), and Asian (6.7%). Extraintestinal manifestations, mainly musculoskeletal affections, were more frequent in immigrants (19 vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Use of biologics, mainly anti-TNF, was greater in immigrants (36 vs. 29%, p < 0.001). The risk of having extraintestinal manifestations [OR: 2.23 (1.92-2.58, p < 0.001)] and using biologics [OR: 1.13 (1.0-1.26, p = 0.042)] was independently associated with immigrant status in the multivariate analyses. ConclusionsCompared with native-born patients, first-generation-immigrant IBD patients in Spain were younger at disease onset and showed an increased risk of having extraintestinal manifestations and using biologics. Our study suggests a featured phenotype of immigrant IBD patients in Spain, and constitutes a new landmark in the epidemiological characterization of immigrant IBD populations in Southern Europe

Severe COVID-19 Illness and α1-Antitrypsin Deficiency: COVID-AATD Study

Background: Epidemiologic studies have reported that the geographical distribution of the prevalence of allelic variants of serine protein inhibitor-A1 (SERPINA1) and severe cases of COVID-19 were similar. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study to evaluate the frequency of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) in patients with COVID-19 and whether it was associated with having suffered severe COVID-19. Results: 2022 patients who had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mutations associated with AATD were more frequent in severe COVID versus non-severe (23% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.022). The frequency of Pi*Z was 37.8/1000 in severe COVID versus 17.5/1000 in non-severe, p = 0.001. Having an A1AT level below 116 was more frequent in severe COVID versus non-severe (29.5% vs. 23.1, p = 0.003). Factors associated with a higher likelihood of severe COVID-19 were being male, older, smoking, age-associated comorbidities, and having an A1AT level below 116 mg/dL [OR 1.398, p = 0.003], and a variant of the SERPINA1 gene that could affect A1AT protein [OR 1.294, p = 0.022]. Conclusions: These observations suggest that patients with AATD should be considered at a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19. Further studies are needed on the role of A1AT in the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its possible therapeutic role

Effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis: Real-world evidence from the ENEIDA registry

Abstract Background: The development program (UNIFI) has shown promising results of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment that should be confirmed in clinical practice. Aims: To evaluate the durability, effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in UC in real-life. Methods: Patients included in the prospectively maintained ENEIDA registry who received at least one intravenous dose of ustekinumab due to active UC [Partial Mayo Score (PMS) >2] were included. Clinical activity and effectiveness were defined based on PMS. Short-term response was assessed at week 16. Results: A total of 95 patients were included. At week 16, 53% of patients had response (including 35% of patients in remission). In the multivariate analysis, elevated serum C-reactive protein was the only variable significantly associated with lower likelihood of achieving remission. Remission was achieved in 39% and 33% of patients at weeks 24 and 52, respectively. Thirty-six percent of patients discontinued the treatment with ustekinumab during a median follow-up of 31 weeks. The probability of maintaining ustekinumab treatment was 87% at week 16, 63% at week 56, and 59% at week 72; primary failure was the main reason for ustekinumab discontinuation. No variable was associated with risk of discontinuation. Three patients reported adverse events; one of them had a fatal severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Ustekinumab is effective both in the short and the long-term in real-life, even in a highly refractory cohort. Higher inflammatory burden at baseline correlated with lower probability of achieving remission. Safety was consistent with the known profile of ustekinuma