Background and Aims: Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have been included into the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the different ADA biosimilars after replacing the ADA originator for a non-medical reason remains scarce. We aimed to compare in a real-life setting the efficacy and safety of four ADA biosimilars SB5, APB501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in IBD patients after replacing the originator for a non-medical reason. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on consecutive IBD patients, analyzing clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. The primary endpoints of the study were maintenance of clinical remission and safety of the different biosimilars. Results: 153 patients were enrolled, 26 with UC and 127 with CD. Clinical remission was maintained in 124 out of 153 (81%) patients after a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6–24) months, without any significant difference between the four ADA biosimilars. ADA biosimilars dosage was optimized in five patients (3.3%). Loss of remission was significantly higher in UC patients (10/26 patients, 38.5%) than in CD patients (19/127 patients, 14.9%, p<0.025). Adverse events occurred in 12 (7.9%) patients; the large majority were mild. Conclusions: No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars when used to replace the ADA originator for a non-medical reason. However, in UC patients the replacement of ADA originator for this reason should be carefully assessed.

The approval of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced the cost of treatment. While several ADA biosimilars are currently available, comparative data on the ADA biosimilar GP2017 (Hyrimoz^TM) and its originator (Humira^TM) in IBD are lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of GP2017 versus originator in IBD outpatients in an Italian real-life setting. This retrospective analysis enrolled consecutive IBD patients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was assessed with the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey–Bradshaw Index in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the induction of remission and the safety of GP2017 versus ADA originator. One hundred and thirty-four patients (30.6% with UC and 69.4% with CD, median age 38 years) were enrolled: 62 (46.3%) patients were treated with GP2017, and 72 (53.7%) with ADA originator; 118 (88.1%) patients were naïve to ADA. Clinical remission was obtained in 105 (78.4%) patients, during a median follow-up of 12 months, 82.3% and 75% in the GP2017 and ADA originator groups, respectively (p = 0.311). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. This analysis of real-world data suggests that GP2017 and its originator are equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with IBD.

Background: Ustekinumab (UST) has demonstrated effectiveness in treating patients with Crohn’s disease. Monitoring treatment response can improve disease management and reduce healthcare costs. We investigated whether UST trough levels (TLs), serum IL22, and Oncostatin M (OSM) levels could be early indicators of non-response by analysing their correlation with clinical and biochemical outcomes in CD. Methods: Patients with CD initiating UST treatment from October 2018 to September 2020 were enrolled at six Italian centres for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Clinical and biochemical data were collected at four time points: baseline, second subcutaneous (SC) dose, fourth SC dose, and 52 weeks. TLs were measured during maintenance, at the second SC dose, and at the fourth SC dose. IL-22 and OSM serum levels were assessed at baseline and the second SC dose. We analysed whether TLs, IL22 levels, and OSM serum levels were associated with clinical response, clinical remission, biochemical remission, and endoscopic remission using the appropriate statistical tests. Results: Out of eighty-four initially enrolled patients, five were lost to follow-up, and eleven discontinued the drug before 52 weeks. At the 52-week time point, 47% achieved biochemical remission based on faecal calprotectin levels, and 61.8% achieved clinical remission. TLs at the second SC dose significantly correlated with biochemical remission at the same time point (p = 0.011). However, TLs did not correlate with clinical remission. Baseline OSM levels did not correlate with biochemical or clinical remission or response. IL22 levels notably decreased during UST therapy (p = 0.000), but its values did not correlate with biochemical or clinical remission. Conclusions: UST is an effective therapy for patients with CD. TLs measured at the second SC dose significantly correlated with biochemical remission, emphasising their potential role in treatment monitoring. Levels of OSM and IL-22, despite a significant decrease in the latter during therapy, did not exhibit correlations with clinical or biochemical outcomes in our study. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Ustekinumab (UST) is an interleukin-12/interleukin-23 receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD). Only limited real-life data on the long-term outcomes of CD patients treated with UST are available. This study assessed UST’s long-term effectiveness and safety in a large population-based cohort of moderate to severe CD patients. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study that included both naïve and biologic-experienced patients treated with UST who achieved clinical remission or clinical response after at least one year of treatment. Clinical activity was scored according to the Harvey–Bradshaw Index (HBI). The primary endpoints were the maintenance or achievement of clinical remission after a further 12-month period of treatment, defined as an HBI of ≤5, and safety. Other endpoints included steroid-free remission, mucosal healing (MH), steroid discontinuation, and the need for treatment optimization during the follow-up. Results: Out of 562 CD patients, after an overall 24-month follow-up, clinical remission was present in 450 (80.0%) patients, and at 12 months, clinical remission was observed in 417/437 (95.4%) patients; 33/125 (26.4%) showed clinical response at 12 months (p = 0.000). A total of 38/103 (36.9%) patients achieved MH. Only 2.1% (12/562), 3% (17/562), and 1.1% (6/562) of patients required surgery, optimization, and re-induction, respectively. Adverse events occurred in eight patients (1.42%). According to a multivariate analysis, the only predictor of long-term remission was the presence of remission at the 12-month follow-up (p = 0.000). Conclusions: Long-term treatment with UST presents good efficacy and safety profiles in CD patients, especially for patients who achieve remission after one year.

Background and aim Increasing the appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) improves the quality of care while containing costs. The aim of this study was to improve the appropriateness of UGIE through a process involving evaluation of prescriptions and the use of a non-invasive alternative. Materials and methods A senior endoscopist evaluated the appropriateness of all outpatient referrals for UGIE and established the proper timing. Referrals were either accepted and programmed, canceled, or substituted by a non-invasive evaluation of gastric function, determining serum levels of gastrin-17 (G17), Pepsinogen I (PGI) and II (PGII), and antibodies against Helicobacter pylori. Results A total of 5102 requests for UGIE examinations were evaluated; 540 (10.4%) were inappropriate and had been prescribed for: gastroesophageal reflux disease (n=307), surveillance with erroneous timing (n=113), dyspepsia (n=66), other indications (n=20), and absence of written indication (n=34). Gastric function was evaluated in 282/540 patients; findings included normal values in 94 patients without proton-pump inhibitor therapy (PPI) and in 48 on PPI, active H pylori infection in 56, previous H pylori infection in 30, GERD in n=50, and atrophic gastritis in n=4. UGIE was performed in the latter 4 cases. Within 2 years (range 1-22 months) of the initial refusal, 105/504 patients underwent UGIE, with normal endoscopic findings in 71/105 (67.5%), and with no cases of cancer. Conclusions This strategy, based on a strict control of prescriptions, is effective to increase the appropriateness while containing public health costs. The use of gastric function testing improves patient selection for UGIE endoscopy.

Background and Aims: In clinical practice, most patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) undergo esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD), despite its low sensitivity in detecting reflux stigmata. Gastrin 17 (G-17) has been proposed to be related with GERD, due to the negative feedback between acid secretion and this hormone. We assessed the clinical usefulness of fasting G-17 serum determination for a non-invasive diagnosis of GERD in patients with typical symptoms. Methods: We consecutively enrolled patients complaining of typical GERD symptoms in two different settings: a single referral center and a primary care setting. Control groups consisted of dyspeptic patients. All subjects underwent assessment of serum levels of G-17 and EGD. Results: At the academic hospital, 100 GERD patients (n=89 with erosive esophagitis and 11 with Barrett’s esophagus) had statistically significant low levels of G-17 as compared with 184 dyspeptic patients (1.7±1.2 pg/L vs 8.9±5.7 pg/L p<0.0001). Similarly, in the primary care setting, 163 GERD patients had statistically significant low levels of G-17 as compared with 132 dyspeptic patients (0.5±0.2 pg/L vs. 4.0±2.6 pg/L, p<0.0001). Moreover, in the primary care setting, no statistically significant differences were found for G-17 levels between patients with erosive and non-erosive reflux pattern (0.4±0.2 vs 0.7±0.3; p=0.08). In primary care, the accuracy of G-17 less than 1 pg/L to diagnose non-invasively GERD was 94.3%. Conclusions: Low levels of G-17 were detected in patients with erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus in a referral center and in patients with typical GERD symptoms in a sample of patients from a primary care setting.