(1) Aims: To assess the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Spain, to describe the main epidemiological and clinical characteristics at diagnosis and the evolution of the disease, and to explore the use of drug treatments. (2) Methods: Prospective, population-based nationwide registry. Adult patients diagnosed with IBD—Crohn’s disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) or IBD unclassified (IBD-U)—during 2017 in Spain were included and were followed-up for 1 year. (3) Results: We identified 3611 incident cases of IBD diagnosed during 2017 in 108 hospitals covering over 22 million inhabitants. The overall incidence (cases/100,000 person-years) was 16 for IBD, 7.5 for CD, 8 for UC, and 0.5 for IBD-U; 53% of patients were male and median age was 43 years (interquartile range = 31–56 years). During a median 12-month follow-up, 34% of patients were treated with systemic steroids, 25% with immunomodulators, 15% with biologics and 5.6% underwent surgery. The percentage of patients under these treatments was significantly higher in CD than UC and IBD-U. Use of systemic steroids and biologics was significantly higher in hospitals with high resources. In total, 28% of patients were hospitalized (35% CD and 22% UC patients, p < 0.01). (4) Conclusion: The incidence of IBD in Spain is rather high and similar to that reported in Northern Europe. IBD patients require substantial therapeutic resources, which are greater in CD and in hospitals with high resources, and much higher than previously reported. One third of patients are hospitalized in the first year after diagnosis and a relevant proportion undergo surgery.

Summary: Background: Effectiveness of vedolizumab in real world clinical practice is unknown.Aim: To evaluate the short and long‐term effectiveness of vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Methods: Patients who received at least 1 induction dose of vedolizumab were included. Effectiveness was defined based on Harvey‐Bradshaw index (HBI) in Crohn's disease (CD) and Partial Mayo Score (PMS) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Short‐term response was assessed at week 14. Variables associated with short‐term remission were identified by logistic regression analysis. The Kaplan‐Meier method was used to evaluate the long‐term durability of vedolizumab treatment. Cox model was used to identify factors associated with discontinuation of treatment and loss of response.Results: 521 patients were included (median follow‐up 10 months [interquartile range 5‐18 months]). At week 14, 46.8% had remission and 15.7% clinical response. CD (vs UC), previous surgery, higher CRP concentration and disease severity at baseline were significantly associated with impaired response. The rate of vedolizumab discontinuation was 37% per patient‐year of follow‐up (27.6% in UC and 45.3% in CD, P < 0.01). CD (vs UC), anaemia at baseline, steroids during induction and CRP concentration were associated with lower durability of treatment. Seven per cent of patients developed adverse events, infections being the most frequent.Conclusions: Over 60% of IBD patients respond to vedolizumab. Many patients discontinue treatment over time. CD and disease burden impair both short‐ and long‐term response. Vedolizumab seems to be safe in clinical practice.

Background: Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for the management of Crohn’s disease [CD]. Data on which one would be the most beneficial option when anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents fail are limited. Aims: To compare the durability, effectiveness, and safety of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD. Methods: CD patients from the ENEIDA registry who received vedolizumab or ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance were included. Durability and effectiveness were evaluated in both the short and the long term. Effectiveness was defined according to the Harvey–Bradshaw index [HBI]. The safety profile was compared between the two treatments. The propensity score was calculated by the inverse probability weighting method to balance confounder factors. Results: A total of 835 patients from 30 centres were included, 207 treated with vedolizumab and 628 with ustekinumab. Dose intensification was performed in 295 patients. Vedolizumab [vs ustekinumab] was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02–3.21), adjusted by corticosteroids at baseline [HR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.00–1.62], moderate–severe activity in HBI [HR 1.79; 95% CI: 1.20–2.48], and high levels of C-reactive protein at baseline [HR 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02–1.10]. The inverse probability weighting method confirmed these results. Clinical response, remission, and corticosteroid-free clinical remission were higher with ustekinumab than with vedolizumab. Both drugs had a low risk of adverse events with no differences between them. Conclusion: In CD patients who have failed anti-TNF agents, ustekinumab seems to be superior to vedolizumab in terms of durability and effectiveness in clinical practice. The safety profile is good and similar for both treatments.