6 research outputs found

    Anemia and Iron Deficiency in Outpatients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Ubiquitous Yet Suboptimally Managed

    No full text
    Background: Iron deficiency (ID) and anemia in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are associated with a reduced quality of life. We assessed the prevalence of ID and anemia in Dutch outpatients with IBD and compared routine ID(A) management among medical professionals to the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) treatment guidelines. Methods: Between January and November 2021, consecutive adult outpatients with IBD were included in this study across 16 Dutch hospitals. Clinical and biochemical data were extracted from medical records. Additionally, medical professionals filled out questionnaires regarding routine ID(A) management. Results: In total, 2197 patients (1271 Crohn’s Disease, 849 Ulcerative Colitis, and 77 IBD-unclassified) were included. Iron parameters were available in 59.3% of cases. The overall prevalence of anemia, ID, and IDA was: 18.0%, 43.4%, and 12.2%, respectively. The prevalence of all three conditions did not differ between IBD subtypes. ID(A) was observed more frequently in patients with biochemically active IBD than in quiescent IBD (ID: 70.8% versus 23.9%; p < 0.001). Contrary to the guidelines, most respondents prescribed standard doses of intravenous or oral iron regardless of biochemical parameters or inflammation. Lastly, 25% of respondents reported not treating non-anemic ID. Conclusions: One in five patients with IBD suffers from anemia that—despite inconsistently measured iron parameters—is primarily caused by ID. Most medical professionals treat IDA with oral iron or standard doses of intravenous iron regardless of biochemical inflammation; however, non-anemic ID is often overlooked. Raising awareness about the management of ID(A) is needed to optimize and personalize routine care

    Complete Endoscopic Healing Is Associated With Lower Relapse Risk After Anti-TNF Withdrawal in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

    Get PDF
    Background & Aims: Discontinuation of anti–tumor necrosis factor-α treatment (anti-TNF) (infliximab and adalimumab) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with a high relapse risk that may be influenced by endoscopic activity at the time of stopping. We assessed the relapse rate after anti-TNF withdrawal in patients with endoscopic healing and studied predictors of relapse including the depth of endoscopic healing. Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective study in adult patients with Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), or IBD-unclassified (IBDU), with ≥6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission (confirmed at baseline) and endoscopic healing (Mayo <2/SES-CD <5 without large ulcers), who discontinued anti-TNF between 2018 and 2020 in the Netherlands. We performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to assess the relapse rate and evaluate potential predictors: partial (Mayo 1/SES-CD 3–4) versus complete (Mayo 0/SES-CD 0–2) endoscopic healing, anti-TNF trough levels, and immunomodulator and/or mesalamine use. Results: Among 81 patients (CD: n = 41, 51%) with a median follow-up of 2.0 years (interquartile range, 1.6–2.1), 40 patients (49%) relapsed. Relapse rates in CD and UC/IBDU patients were comparable. At 12 months, 70% versus 35% of patients with partial versus complete endoscopic healing relapsed, respectively (adjusted hazard rate [aHR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–7.50). Mesalamine use was associated with fewer relapses in UC/IBDU patients (aHR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01–0.67). Thirty patients restarted anti-TNF, and clinical remission was regained in 73% at 3 months. Conclusions: The relapse risk was high after anti-TNF withdrawal in IBD patients with endoscopic healing, but remission was regained in most cases after anti-TNF reintroduction. Complete endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment in UC/IBDU patients decreased the risk of relapse

    Adenomas in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Are Associated with an Increased Risk of Advanced Neoplasia

    No full text
    <p>Background: It is still unclear whether inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with adenomas have a higher risk of developing high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or colorectal cancer (CRC) than non-IBD patients with sporadic adenomas. We compared the risk of advanced neoplasia (AN, defined as HGD or CRC) in IBD patients with adenomas to IBD patients without adenomas and patients without IBD with adenomas.</p><p>Methods: IBD patients with a histological adenoma diagnosis (IBD + adenoma), age-matched IBD patients without adenoma (IBD-nonadenoma), and adenoma patients without IBD (nonIBD + adenoma) were enrolled in this study. Medical charts were reviewed for adenoma characteristics and development of AN. The endoscopic appearance of the adenomas was characterized as typical (solitary sessile or pedunculated) or atypical (all other descriptions).</p><p>Results: A total of 110 IBD + adenoma patients, 123 IBD-nonadenoma patients, and 179 nonIBD + adenoma patients were included. Mean duration of follow-up was 88 months (SD +/- 41). The 5-year cumulative risks of AN were 11%, 3%, and 5% in IBD + adenoma, IBD-nonadenoma, and nonIBD + adenoma patients, respectively (P <0.01). In IBD patients atypical adenomas were associated with a higher 5-year cumulative risk of AN compared to IBD patients with typical adenomas (18% vs. 7%, P = 0.03).</p><p>Conclusions: IBD patients with a histological diagnosis of adenoma have a higher risk of developing AN than adenoma patients without IBD and IBD patients without adenomas. The presence of atypical adenomas in particular was associated with this increased risk, although patients with typical adenomas were found to carry an additional risk as well. (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013; 19: 342-349)</p>

    Superior Effectiveness of Tofacitinib Compared to Vedolizumab in Anti-TNF-experienced Ulcerative Colitis Patients: A Nationwide Dutch Registry Study

    Get PDF
    Background & Aims: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. Methods: Patients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 μg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias. Results: Overall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81–10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89–4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15–2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96–5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14–3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06–3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events. Conclusions: Tofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes
    corecore