Faculty Bibliography

In individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) represent a significant burden of illness, with reported prevalence rates of up to 50%.¹ Of the various types of EIMs, the most commonly involved organ system is the musculoskeletal system.

BACKGROUND:The prognostic significance of histology in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate if histologic variables are predictive of IPAA clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with IPAA undergoing surveillance pouchoscopy at a tertiary care institution. Pouch body biopsies were reviewed by gastrointestinal pathologists, who were blinded to clinical outcomes, for histologic features of acute or chronic inflammation. Charts were reviewed for clinical outcomes including development of acute pouchitis, chronic pouchitis, biologic or small molecule initiation, hospitalizations, and surgery. Predictors of outcomes were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS:A total of 167 patients undergoing surveillance pouchoscopy were included. Polymorphonuclear leukocytes (odds ratio [OR], 1.67), ulceration and erosion (OR, 2.44), chronic inflammation (OR, 1.97), and crypt distortion (OR, 1.89) were associated with future biologic or small molecule initiation for chronic pouchitis. Loss of goblet cells was associated with development of chronic pouchitis (OR, 4.65). Pyloric gland metaplasia was associated with hospitalizations (OR, 5.24). No histologic variables were predictive of development of acute pouchitis or surgery. In an exploratory subgroup analysis of new IPAA (<1 year), loss of goblet cells was associated with acute pouchitis (OR, 14.86) and chronic pouchitis (OR, 12.56). Pyloric gland metaplasia was again associated with hospitalizations (OR, 13.99). CONCLUSIONS:Histologic findings may be predictive of IPAA outcomes. Pathologists should incorporate key histologic variables into pouchoscopy pathology reports. Clinicians may need to more closely monitor IPAA patients with significant histologic findings.

BACKGROUND:There is little data regarding the risk of new or recurrent cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a prior history of cancer who are exposed to ustekinumab or vedolizumab. We assessed the risk of subsequent cancer in patients exposed to these agents. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with IBD and a history of cancer at an academic medical center between January 2013 and December 2020. We collected data on demographics, IBD and cancer disease characteristics, and drug exposures. The primary exposure was immunosuppressive therapy after diagnosis of cancer. The primary outcome was interval development of new or recurrent cancer. RESULTS:Of 390 patients with IBD and a previous history of cancer, 37 were exposed to vedolizumab, 14 ustekinumab, 41 antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), and 31 immunomodulator; and 267 were not exposed to immunosuppression following cancer diagnosis. During a total median follow-up time of 52 months, 81 (20%) patients developed subsequent cancer: 6 (16%) were exposed to vedolizumab, 2 (14%) to ustekinumab, 3 (10%) to immunomodulators, 12 (29%) to anti-TNF, and 56 (21%) with no immunosuppression (P = .41). In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, IBD subtype, smoking, cancer recurrence risk, and cancer stage, there was no increase in subsequent cancer with vedolizumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.27-7.01) or ustekinumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.17-5.41). Patients with more than 1 biologic exposure also did not have an increased risk of subsequent cancer. CONCLUSIONS:Exposure to ustekinumab or vedolizumab in patients with IBD and a prior history of cancer does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of subsequent new or recurrent cancer.

The incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing in the elderly population. Compared with patients with onset during younger years, patients with elderly-onset IBD have a distinct clinical presentation, disease phenotype, and natural history. Genetics contribute less to pathogenesis of disease, whereas aging-related biological changes, such as immunosenescence and dysbiosis, are associated with elderly-onset IBD. Frailty is an increasingly recognized predictor of adverse outcomes. As an increasingly wider array of biologic and small molecule therapeutic options becomes available, data regarding efficacy and safety of these agents in patients are paramount given the unique characteristics of this population.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not associated with worse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. However, data are lacking regarding the long-term impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection on the disease course of IBD. Objectives/UNASSIGNED:We aimed to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on long-term outcomes of IBD. Design/UNASSIGNED:We performed a multicenter case-control study of patients with IBD and COVID-19 between February 2020 and December 2020. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Cases and controls were individuals with IBD with presence or absence, respectively, of COVID-19-related symptoms and confirmatory testing. The primary composite outcome was IBD-related hospitalization or surgery. Results/UNASSIGNED: = 0.24) and on multivariate Cox regression, COVID-19 was not associated with increased risk of adverse IBD outcomes [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.42]. When stratified by infection severity, severe COVID-19 was associated with a numerically increased risk of adverse IBD outcomes (aHR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.00-5.86), whereas mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was not (aHR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.38-1.23). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:In this case-control study, COVID-19 did not have a long-term impact on the disease course of IBD. However, severe COVID-19 was numerically associated with worse IBD outcomes, underscoring the continued importance of risk mitigation and prevention strategies for patients with IBD during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND:There is wide variation in the quality of care of hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Prior studies have demonstrated that a specialized inpatient IBD service improves short-term outcomes. In this study, we assessed the impact of a dedicated IBD service on the quality of care and long-term outcomes. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted for a complication of IBD between March 2017 and February 2019 to a tertiary referral center. In March 2018, a dedicated inpatient IBD service co-managed by IBD gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons was implemented. Quality of care outcomes included C. difficile stool testing, confirmed VTE prophylaxis administration and opiate avoidance. Long-term outcomes were clinical remission, IBD-related surgery, ED visits, and hospital readmissions at 90 days and 12 months. RESULTS:In total, 143 patients were included; 66 pre- and 77 post-implementation of the IBD service. Fifty-two percent had ulcerative colitis and 48% had Crohn's disease. After implementation, there was improvement in C.difficile testing (90% vs. 76%, P = 0.04), early VTE prophylaxis (92% vs. 77%, P = 0.01) and decreases in narcotic use (14% vs. 30%, P = 0.02), IBD-related ED visits at 90 days (7% vs 18%, P = 0.03) and 12 months (16% vs 30%, P = 0.04), and IBD readmissions at 90 days (16% vs. 30%, P = 0.04). There were no differences in rates of clinical remission or surgery. CONCLUSIONS:The creation of a dedicated inpatient IBD service improved quality of IBD care and reduced post-discharge ED visits and readmissions and broader implementation of this strategy may help optimize care of hospitalized IBD patients.

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), psoriasis (PsO), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are immune-mediated inflammatory diseases characterized by dysregulation of the immune system. Evidence suggests that they share a common genetic and pathophysiologic pathway and that the presence of one increases the risk of developing others. While rates of PsO and PsA are increased in patients with IBD, data is lacking regarding whether phenotypic differences exist in patients with concurrent disease. In this study, we describe the disease characteristics of patients with IBD and PsO/PsA overlap.
Method(s): We performed a single-center case-control observational study. Eighty-five patients with IBD and PsO and/or PsA were identified and matched with a control group of patients with IBD alone in a 1:2 fashion based on age, sex and IBD type (n=190). Patient demographics, IBD phenotype and history, treatment patterns, and family history were collected.
Result(s): We identified 85 patients with IBD and PsO +/-PsA, matched with 190 controls. IBD 1 PsO/PsA patients were less frequently White (85% vs. 94%) and more frequently Asian (7% vs. 3%), compared with IBD only patients (P, 0.01, Table 1). There were no differences in extent of ulcerative colitis (UC) or distribution of Crohn's disease (CD), but patients with IBD alone were more likely to have penetrating Crohn's disease (48% vs. 7%; P, 0.01), prior hospitalizations (48% vs. 28%; P, 0.01), and prior surgeries (35% vs. 17%; P=0.02), compared to patients with overlap PsO +/-PsA. Rates of exposure to various biologic therapies were similar between the two groups, with the exception of decreased vedolizumab use in the IBD 1 PsO/PsA group (12% vs. 31% respectively; P, 0.01, Table 2). IBD only patients were more likely to have first-degree relatives (FDR) with IBD (35% vs. 23%; P=0.02) and numerically less likely to have a FDR with PsO or PsA (14% vs. 20%; P=0.21) than patients with PsO/PsA overlap (Table 1).
Conclusion(s): In this study, we report for the first time disease characteristics of patients with IBD and overlap PsO or PsA. Our results suggests that patients with IBD and PsO/PsA may have a less severe disease phenotype than patients with IBD alone, and that genetic risks may differ between these two groups. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings

Introduction: With an aging population, management of biologic therapy in IBD patients with active or recent cancer is challenging. We evaluated the comparative safety of non-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-a directed therapy vs. TNFa antagonists vs. immunomodulator monotherapy (IMM) in IBD patients with active or recent cancer (<=5 years).
Method(s): Through the collaborative REACH-IBD (Rising Educators Academics and Clinicians Helping IBD) research initiative, we conducted a retrospective, multi-center cohort study. We included IBD patients from 12 centers with active cancer (Cohort A) or recent cancer within = years (Cohort B) who were treated with non-TNFa biologics vs. TNFa antagonists (reference) after cancer diagnosis.We excluded patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer. Primary outcomes were cancer progression (Cohort A) or new/recurrent cancer (Cohort B). We performed Cox proportional hazard analysis to compare the safety of different biologics.
Result(s): (Cohort A)We included 107 patients with active cancer (5416y, 62% male, 72% solid cancer, 400 person-year follow-up), of whom 35 were treated with non-TNFa biologics (29 vedolizumab, 6 ustekinumab), 45 with TNFa antagonists and 27 with IMM (Table 1). Overall, 19 patients had progression of cancer, 13 died and 20 were hospitalized for serious infection (Figure 1A). After adjusting for age and type of active cancer, there was no difference in the risk of cancer progression (non-TNFa biologics vs. TNFa antagonists: HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.48-5.03), mortality (HR, 2.74; 95% CI, 0.25-30.5) and serious infections (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.15-24.0) between patients treated with non-TNFa biologics vs. TNFa antagonists. (Cohort B) We included 141 patients with recent prior cancer (5214y, 51% male, 86% solid cancer; duration of remission prior to starting biologics, 1719m) of whom 54 were treated with non-TNFa biologics (40 vedolizumab, 14 ustekinumab), 63 with TNFa antagonists and 24 with IMM (Table 1). Overall, 14 patients had recurrence of cancer (or developed new incident cancer) and 6 died (Figure 1B). After adjusting for age, type of prior cancer and duration of remission, there was no difference in the risk of cancer recurrence between non-TNFa biologics vs. TNFa antagonists (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.16-5.75).
Conclusion(s): In IBD patients with active or recent cancer (within = years), non-TNFa-directed biologics and TNFa antagonists have comparable safety. Choice of biologic should be dictated by IBD disease severity, in collaboration with an oncologist