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.

The cause of collagenous colitis (CC) and lymphocytic colitis (LC) is unknown and epidemiological risk factors for CC and LC are not well studied. The aim was to evaluate in a case-control study epidemiological risk factors for CC and LC. In all, 120 patients with CC, 70 with CL, and 128 controls were included. For all cases and controls information was prospectively recorded. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed separately for CC and LC. Independent associations observed with the diagnosis of CC were: current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 2.4), history of polyarthritis (OR, 20.8), and consumption of lansoprazole (OR, 6.4), low-dose aspirin (OR, 3.8), beta-blockers (OR, 3.6), and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (OR 0.20). In the case of LC they were: current smoking (OR, 3.8), associated autoimmune diseases (OR, 8), and consumption of sertraline (OR, 17.5), omeprazole (OR 2.7), low-dose aspirin (OR, 4.7), and oral antidiabetic drugs (OR, 0.14). The consumption of drugs, current smoking, and associated autoimmune diseases were independently associated with the risk of microscopic colitis.

Background: It has been suggested that high titres of tTG are associated with elevated positive predictive values (PPV) for celiac disease. However, the PPV of a strongly positive tTG will depend on the celiac disease prevalence in the different risk groups of the disease Aims: To assess the PPV of a strongly positive tTG for celiac disease. In addition, to calculate the post-test probability for celiac disease of a strongly positive tTG in a setting of routine clinical practice. Methods: 145 consecutive celiac disease patients with positive tTG, and with a small bowel biopsy were included. The PPV for different cut-off points of tTG levels for the diagnosis of celiac disease was assessed. In addition, the cut-offs associated with higher PPV were used to calculate the positive likelihood ratio. A simulation in a setting of routine clinical practice was performed to calculate the post-test probability of celiac disease. Results: No cut-off level was associated with a PPV of 100%. A cut-off of 80 U/mL (11.4 × upper normal limit) was associated with the higher PPV value of 98.6%. In the most frequent clinical situations, which in general have a pre-test probability < 10%, the post-test probability after having a strongly positive tTG was 90% or less. Conclusions: A strongly positive tTG should not be enough to diagnose celiac disease in the most frequent clinical situations, small bowel biopsy remaining as the gold standard in these cases.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may require different immunosuppressive treatments throughout their illness. It is essential to assess the immunization status of patients at diagnosis or, if this is not possible, at least before the beginning of immunosuppressive therapy and, subsequently, administering the appropriate vaccines. Therefore, the aim of this work is to establish clear and concise recommendations on vaccination in patients with IBD in the different settings of our clinical practice including vaccination in children, during pregnancy, breastfeeding or on trips. This consensus document emphasises the differences between inactivated and attenuated vaccines and the different degrees of immunosuppression and correlates them with the administration of both mandatory and optional vaccines recommended to our patients with IBD. Finally, as a summary, 17 recommendations are established based on the available scientific evidence and expert opinion. A multidisciplinary team with extensive experience in IBD and vaccination, made up of specialists in gastroenterology, paediatrics, nursing and pharmacy, has participated in the preparation of these recommendations of the Spanish Working Group on Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis.

We aim to describe the incidence and source of contagion of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, as well as the risk factors for a severe course and long-term sequelae. This is a prospective observational study of IBD and COVID-19 included in the ENEIDA registry (53,682 from 73 centres) between March–July 2020 followed-up for 12 months. Results were compared with data of the general population (National Centre of Epidemiology and Catalonia). A total of 482 patients with COVID-19 were identified. Twenty-eight percent were infected in the work environment, and 48% were infected by intrafamilial transmission, despite having good adherence to lockdown. Thirty-five percent required hospitalization, 7.9% had severe COVID-19 and 3.7% died. Similar data were reported in the general population (hospitalisation 19.5%, ICU 2.1% and mortality 4.6%). Factors related to death and severe COVID-19 were being aged ≥ 60 years (OR 7.1, 95% CI: 1.8–27 and 4.5, 95% CI: 1.3–15.9), while having ≥2 comorbidities increased mortality (OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.3–11.6). None of the drugs for IBD were related to severe COVID-19. Immunosuppression was definitively stopped in 1% of patients at 12 months. The prognosis of COVID-19 in IBD, even in immunosuppressed patients, is similar to that in the general population. Thus, there is no need for more strict protection measures in IBD.