The Impact of Crohn's Perianal Fistula on Quality of Life: Results of an International Patient Survey

Lay Summary Results from an online survey completed by patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and perianal fistulas showed the presence of perianal fistulae has a greater negative impact as compared to CD-only patients. These results may help practitioners address patient burden.Background Crohn's perianal fistula is a disabling manifestation of Crohn's disease. However, the additional burden of perianal fistula on patients with only Crohn's disease remains to be addressed. This patient-reported survey considered outcomes of two domains: "diagnosis" (eg, symptoms) and "living with the disease" (eg, quality of life, well-being, and relationships). Methods Patients with perianal fistula and Crohn's disease completed an online, self-selective, anonymous, 46-item survey available in 11 languages hosted on the European Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations and national patient association websites. The survey was conducted between July and December 2019 in Europe and other regions. Likert scales and closed questions were used to assess outcomes. Results Of the 820 respondents with Crohn's disease (67.2% women; median age, 40.0 years), 532 (64.9%) reported the presence of perianal fistula. Patients with perianal fistula reported a greater impact on overall quality of life (P < .001), well-being (P < .001), relationships (P < .001), social life (P = .001), and work life (P = .012) than patients with only Crohn's disease. Conclusions Perianal fistulas impact several domains of the life of patients with Crohn's disease. These results may help healthcare practitioners plan therapeutic strategies that address the symptomatic and psychological burden experienced by patients with perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease

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

Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Effectiveness between Anti-TNF and Ustekinumab after Vedolizumab Failure as First-Line Therapy in Crohn's Disease: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of anti-TNF or ustekinumab (UST) as a second-line biologic after vedolizumab (VDZ) failure has not yet been described. AIMS AND METHODS In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, We aim to investigate the effectiveness of anti-TNF and UST as second-line therapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who failed VDZ as a first-line treatment. The primary outcome was clinical response at week 16-22. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, CRP normalization, and adverse events. RESULTS Fifty-nine patients who failed on VDZ as a first-line treatment for CD were included; 52.8% patients received anti-TNF and 47.2% UST as a second-line therapy. In initial period (Week 16-22), the clinical response and remission rate was similar between both groups: 61.2% vs. 68%, p = 0.8 and 48.3% vs. 56%, p = 0.8 on anti-TNF and UST therapy, respectively. Furthermore, in the maintenance period the rate was similar: 75% vs. 82.3%, p = 0.8 and 62.5% vs. 70.5%, p = 0.8, respectively. Of the patients, 12 out of the 59 stopped the therapy, without a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.6). CONCLUSION Second-line biological therapy after VDZ failure therapy was effective in >60% of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of anti-TNF and UST as a second line

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

C

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

Role of colonoscopy in patients with persistent acute diverticulitis

AIM: To identify patients with persistent acute diverticulitis who might benefit from an early colonoscopy during their first hospitalization