INTRODUCTION: Real-world data on the effectiveness of upadacitinib for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are limited. To assess upadacitinib persistence, effectiveness, and safety in a real-world scenario. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study of patients with IBD who received upadacitinib before 31st December 2022 and at least 12 weeks before the recruitment date. Clinical effectiveness was assessed based on partial Mayo score for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Harvey–Bradshaw index for Crohn's disease (CD). RESULTS: We included 100 patients (68 with CD, and 32 with UC). Patients had previously received a median of 4 advanced therapies. Twenty-three discontinued the treatment (median follow-up 7.6 months). CD (vs UC) (hazard ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–12.9) and age below 40 years at upadacitinib initiation (hazard ratio 2.4; 95% CI: 1.0–5.8) were associated with treatment discontinuation in multivariable analysis. Clinical remission for IBD was achieved in 59% of patients at week 8, 64% at week 12, and 42% at week 52. The proportion of patients with UC previously exposed to tofacitinib (n = 25) who achieved clinical remission was 78% at week 12, and 50% at week 52. Factors associated with clinical remission at week 12 were UC diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 4.6; 95% CI: 1.3–17), mild or moderate activity at baseline (OR 8; 95% CI: 1.1–56), and not smoking (OR 4.4; 95% CI: 1.5–13). Dose escalation recaptured remission in 60% of patients with relapse. Eighty percent of patients with active immune-mediated diseases or extraintestinal manifestations improved with upadacitinib. Forty-three patients reported adverse events, 11 of them serious. DISCUSSION: Upadacitinib is effective and safe for treating patients with highly refractory IBD, even in previously treated with Janus kinase inhibitors.

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.

Background: The impact of biologics on the risk of postoperative complications (PC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is still an ongoing debate. This lack of evidence is more relevant for ustekinumab and vedolizumab. Aims: To evaluate the impact of biologics on the risk of PC. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 37 centres. Patients treated with biologics within 12 weeks before surgery were considered “exposed”. The impact of the exposure on the risk of 30-day PC and the risk of infections was assessed by logistic regression and propensity score-matched analysis. Results: A total of 1535 surgeries were performed on 1370 patients. Of them, 711 surgeries were conducted in the exposed cohort (584 anti-TNF, 58 vedolizumab and 69 ustekinumab). In the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2–2.0), urgent surgery (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2–2.2), laparotomy approach (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1–1.9) and severe anaemia (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3–2.6) had higher risk of PC, while academic hospitals had significantly lower risk. Exposure to biologics (either anti-TNF, vedolizumab or ustekinumab) did not increase the risk of PC (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.97–1.58), although it could be a risk factor for postoperative infections (OR 1.5; 95% CI: 1.03–2.27). Conclusions: Preoperative administration of biologics does not seem to be a risk factor for overall PC, although it may be so for postoperative infections.

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 and Aims: Switching from intravenous infliximab (IV-IFX) to subcutaneous biosimilar infliximab (SC-IFX) has been shown to safely maintain clinical remission and increase drug levels in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes after switching from IV-IFX to SC-IFX, including the drug concentration thresholds for maintaining remission and other predictors for loss of response after the switch. Methods: This multicenter observational study involved CD and UC patients who were in clinical remission for at least 24 weeks and were scheduled to switch from IV-IFX to SC-IFX. Results: Two hundred and twenty patients were included (74 UC [34%] and 146 CD [66%]). IV-IFX was administered for 52.5 months (range 25-89). Before switch, 106 (49%) patients were receiving intensified IV-IFX. While SC-IFX levels significantly increased following the switch from IV-IFX to SC-IFX, clinical parameters, C-reactive protein, and fecal calprotectin remained unchanged during follow-up. SC-IFX levels were significantly higher in patients receiving the standard IV-IFX dose than in those receiving the intensified dose. Immunomodulatory therapy at baseline and perianal disease had no effect on IFX trough levels, whereas higher body mass index was associated with increased levels. The suggested optimal SC-IFX cutoff concentration for clinical and biochemical remissions based on receiver operating characteristic analysis was 12.2 μg/mL (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.62) at Week 12 and 13.2 μg/mL (AUC: 0.57) at Week 52. Drug persistence was 92% at Week 52, with a good safety profile. Conclusions: Switching from IV-IFX to SC-IFX safely maintains long-term remission in patients with CD and UC. In maintenance, the optimal cutoff point associated with remission was 12-13 μg/mL.