Background: Data on ustekinumab and vedolizumab in the elderly inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population are limited. The aim of the current study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of both in an elderly real-life population. Methods: A multicentric retrospective study was performed on IBD patients who started vedolizumab or ustekinumab between 2010 and 2020. Clinical and endoscopic remission rates and (serious) adverse events (AE) were assessed. Results: A total of 911 IBD patients were included, with 171 (19%) aged above 60 (111 VDZ, 60 UST). Elderly patients treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab had an increased risk for non-IBD hospitalization (10.5% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.021) and malignancy (2.3% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.045) compared to the younger population. Corticosteroid-free clinical (50% vs. 44%; p = 0.201) and endoscopic remission rates (47.9% vs. 31%, p = 0.07) at 1 year were similar. Comparing vedolizumab to ustekinumab in the elderly population, corticosteroid-free (47.9% vs. 31%, p = 0.061) and endoscopic remission rates (66.7% vs. 64.4%, p = 0.981) were similar. Vedolizumab- and ustekinumab-treated patients had comparable infection rates (13.5% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.504), IBD flare-ups (4.5% vs. 5%, p = 1.000), the occurrence of new EIMs (13.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.504), a risk of intestinal surgery (5.4% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.742), malignancy (1.8% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.613), hospitalization (9.9% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.721), and mortality (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000). AE risk was associated only with corticosteroid use. Conclusions: Ustekinumab and vedolizumab show comparable effectiveness and safety in the elderly IBD population. Elderly IBD patients have an increased risk for non-IBD hospitalizations and malignancy compared to the younger IBD population, with corticosteroid use as the main risk factor.

Background/Objectives: Gastrointestinal diseases are a major cause of morbidity in common variable immunodeficiency disorder (CVID), clinically often mimicking other conditions including celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Hence, diagnosis of CVID remains challenging. This study aims to raise awareness and highlight histopathological clues for CVID in intestinal biopsies, emphasizing diagnostic pitfalls for the pathologist/gastroenterologist. Methods: We reviewed 63 (18 duodenal, 23 ileal, 22 colonic) biopsies and case histories from seven CVID patients, obtained over a 31-year period, with attention to active inflammation, intraepithelial lymphocytes, plasma cells, lymphoid hyperplasia, crypt/villous architecture, subepithelial collagen, apoptosis, granulomas, and infections. Clinical information of 41 pathology requests was reviewed. Results: Gastrointestinal symptoms were variable. Histological features included IBD-like (3/7), celiac disease-like (2/7), graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-like (2/7), lymphocytic sprue/colitis-like (3/7), collagenous colitis-like (2/7), and acute colitis-like (4/7) patterns, often overlapping (2/7) and/or changing over time (3/7). Lymphoid hyperplasia was seen in 3/7 patients; 1/7 had giardiasis; and 5/7 had few plasma cells, usually only in part of the gut (3/5). Clinical information of 12/41 (29%) pathology requests mentioned known/suspected CVID, despite being known in 33/41 (80%). Conclusions: Clinical/histological features of CVID in the gut are diverse, often mimicking IBD, microscopic colitis, celiac disease and/or GVHD, hence the importance of adequate clinical information. Some histological features are atypical of these established entities and may indicate CVID, as may overlapping/changing histological patterns and/or few plasma cells in part of the gut. Awareness of the heterogenous clinical presentation and histopathological indicators of CVID may improve diagnosis.

Background Since publication of the top 10 research priorities in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) based on the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, the question remains whether this has influenced the IBD-research landscape. This study aimed to create an overview of the current distribution of research interests of trials in the UK. Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov database and European Union Clinical Trials Register were screened for clinical trials set up from 9 August 2016 to 16 November 2019 in the UK involving adult patients with IBD. Results Of 20 non-industry-sponsored studies, a quarter investigated treatment strategies considering efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness (priority 1). Four evaluated the role of diet (priorities 3 and 7). Development/assessment of biomarkers for patient stratification (priority 2) and fatigue (priority 8) were subject of three studies. IBD-related pain and control of diarrhoea/incontinence were each subject of 2 studies (priorities 4 and 6). The effect of gut microbiota (priority 10) and optimal strategy for perianal Crohn’s disease (priority 5) was the focus of 2 studies each. One study evaluated surgery for terminal ileal Crohn’s disease (priority 9). Of 63 industry-sponsored studies, 59 focused on priority 1. Conclusions This study presents an impression of the breadth of the IBD-research landscape in the UK, in light of the top 10 research priorities published in 2016. Optimal treatment strategy has been the most studied research priority by academic and industry-sponsored trials. Fewer studies focused on patient-reported outcomes. It remains debatable to what extent the current research landscape adequately represents all stakeholders’ viewpoints on needs for expanded knowledge in IBD, particularly the patients’ perspective.

Background and Aims: No consensus exists on optimal strategy to prevent postoperative recurrence [POR] after ileocaecal resection [ICR] for Crohn’s disease [CD]. We compared early medical prophylaxis versus expectant management with treatment driven by findings at elective endoscopy 6–12 months after ICR. Methods: A retrospective, multicentric, observational study was performed. CD patients undergoing first ICR were assigned to Cohort 1 if a biologic or immunomodulator was [re]started prophylactically after ICR, or to Cohort 2 if no postoperative prophylaxis was given and treatment was started as reaction to elective endoscopic findings. Primary endpoint was rate of endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts >i1]. Secondary endpoints were severe endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts i3/i4], clinical POR, surgical POR, and treatment burden during follow-up. Results: Of 346 included patients, 47.4% received prophylactic postoperative treatment [proactive/Cohort 1] and 52.6% did not [reactive/Cohort 2]. Endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts >i1] rate was significantly higher in Cohort 2 [41.5% vs 53.8%, OR 1.81, p = 0.039] at endoscopy 6–12 months after surgery. No significant difference in severe endoscopic POR was found [OR 1.29, p = 0.517]. Cohort 2 had significantly higher clinical POR rates [17.7% vs 35.7%, OR 3.05, p = 0.002] and numerically higher surgical recurrence rates [6.7% vs 13.2%, OR 2.59, p = 0.051]. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed no significant difference in time to surgical POR of proactive versus expectant/reactive approach [HR 2.50, p = 0.057]. Quasi-Poisson regression revealed a significantly lower treatment burden for immunomodulator use in Cohort 2 [mean ratio 0.53, p = 0.002], but no difference in burden of biologics or combination treatment. Conclusions: The PORCSE study showed lower rates of endoscopic POR with early postoperative medical treatment compared with expectant management after first ileocaecal resection for Crohn’s disease.