Introduction

Acute severe colitis (ASC) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in Ulcerative Colitis (UC), requiring hospitalisation and, frequently, colectomy. Intravenous corticosteroids (CS) remain the first-line medical treatment. Approximately 40% of episodes of ASC do not respond to this treatment and require rescue therapy with ciclosporin (CIC) or infliximab (IFX)¹. In the past decades, these treatments and protocol-driven management algorithms led to reduced mortality and colectomy rates. A simple clinical scoring system (the Admission Model for the Intensification of Therapy in Acute Severe Colitis (ADMIT-ASC))³, based on CRP, albumin, and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score, was recently developed to predict the steroid response on admission.

Aims & Methods

We aimed to retrospectively assess the steroid non-response during admission with ASC and the usefulness of the new prognostic clinical index ADMIT-ASC at admission to predict steroid response in a Belgian tertiary center. All patients admitted with ASC between 1^st January 2015 and 1^st April 2023 were identified from our inflammatory bowel disease database at Erasme University Hospital. Inclusion criteria were ASC patients admitted at the hospital, standard treatment with at least 3 days of intravenous CS and endoscopy evaluation upon admission. ASC was defined according to modified Truelove and Witts’ criteria as ≥6 bloody stools/day with one or more markers of systemic disturbance (tachycardia >90 beats/min, temperature >37.8°C, haemoglobin <105 g/L or CRP >30 mg/L). Steroid non-response was defined as the need for medical rescue therapy (CIC of IFX) or colectomy during the admission. ADMIT-ASC index consists of four points: CRP ≥100 mg/L (1 point), albumin ≤25 g/L (1 point) and UCEIS score ≥4 (1 point) or ≥7 (2 points).

Results

Table I Admission Demographics data (n= 84)	Steroid response (n=49)	Steroid non-response (n=35)	P value
Median disease duration (years) (IQR)	3.6 (0.3-0.9)	2.1 (0.8-5.5)	0.5
Montreal Classification	E1 : 5/49 (10%) E2 : 20/49 (41%) E3 : 24/49 (49%)	E1 : 0/35 E2 : 12/35 (34%) E3 : 23/35 (66%)	0.084
5-ASA, n (%)	22 (45%)	10 (29%)	0.13
Methotrexate or thiopurine, n (%)	6 (12%)	9 (26%)	0.11
Infliximab, n (%)	4 (8.2%)	8 (23%)	0.058
Vedolizumab, n (%)	7 (14%)	5 (14%)	>0.9
Tofacitinib, n (%)	2 (4.1%)	2 (5.7%)	>0.9
Readmission, n (%)	12 (24%)	10 (29%)	0.7
5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylate P values from Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Fisher’s exact test.

Out of 127 patients admitted with UC and treated with intravenous CS during three days, 84 (45% male, median age of 31 years old) were included in the study. Admission demographics and clinical characteristics are described in Table 1.
For 17 patients (20%), the admission was their index presentation of UC. Response to CS was seen in 49 patients (58%). Thirty-three patients (39%) received medical rescue therapy (17/33 IFX and 16/33 CIC). Colectomy rate during admission was 13% after a median duration of 18 days (IQR: 16-54). Admission C reactive protein (CRP) (p=0.036), albumin (p=0.026) and UCEIS scores (p=0.022) were significantly associated with steroid non-response. Patients scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 had steroid response rates of 90%,75%, 55%, 19% and 0%, respectively. Scoring of ≥3 was 75% (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.95) predictive of steroid failure (OR 5.08, 95%, CI 1.38 to 24.5).

Conclusion

In this tertiary referral cohort study, we confirmed that the ADMIT-ASC index is a simple clinical tool that can be used on the day of admission to predict steroid non-response in ASC with a threshold of ≥3 to identify patients who are unlikely to respond to intravenous CS and enabling timely treatment escalation or surgery.

References

1. Travis S, Satsangi J, Lémann M. Predicting the need for colectomy in severe ulcerativecolitis: a critical appraisal of clinical parameters and currently available biomarkers. Gut 2011;60:3–9.
2. Travis SP, Farrant JM, Ricketts C, et al. Predicting outcome in severe ulcerative colitis.Gut 1996;38:905–10.
3. Adams A, Gupta V, Mohsen W, et al. Gut 2023;72:433–442.

Disclosure

VB has not disclosure.
CDT has not disclosure.
CM has not disclosure.
AC has received lecture fees from Galapagos, Abbvie, Janssen, celltrion, Pfizer, Takeda.
DF has received lecture fees from Abbvie, Astrazeneca, Dr.Falk Pharma, Ferring, Janssen, Mundipharma, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, and advisory board fees from Abbvie, Janssen,Takeda, Celltrion, Amgen.
CL has received consultancy fees from Janssen, Abbvie, Takeda and Galapago and speaker fees from Sandoz, Janssen, Abbvie

Introduction

The LIR!C trial demonstrated that laparoscopic ileocaecal resection (ICR) is a cost-effective alternative to infliximab therapy (IFX) in patients with uncomplicated ileocaecal Crohn’s disease (CD), with comparable quality of life outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the 10-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the LIR!C trial.

Aims & Methods

This retrospective follow-up study included patients from the original LIR!C trial, a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing ICR to IFX treatment in patients with ileal CD. Long term follow-up data were collected between February 3 and April 14, 2025. Data extraction was focused on initiation or switch of IBD treatments (corticosteroids, immunomodulators and/or advanced medical therapies) and (re)-resections. The follow-up period ranged from trial enrolment to the last visit with the gastroenterologist or surgeon. Primary outcomes were: (1) proportion of patients in clinical remission without therapy switch (no medical therapy or re-resection in the ICR group, and continuation or the cessation of IFX in case of remission in the IFX group), and (2) therapy-free remission, defined as clinical remission without IBD medication and (re)resections.

Results

Follow-up data were available from 60 ICR patients and 57 IFX patients (87% of 134 patients originally included). The median follow-up time was 12 years (IQR 9-14). The clinical remission rate without therapy switch was 40% in the ICR group compared to 26.3% in the IFX group (p=0.117). Of the 60 ICR patients, 24 (40%) had no additional therapy, 13 (21.7%) received an immunomodulator, 18 (30%) biological therapy and 5 (8.3%) underwent a second resection after biological treatment. In the IFX group, 33 (57.9%) required an ICR of whom 25 (75.8%) had previously received second-line biological treatment. Additionally, 7/57 patients (12.3%) were therapy free, 8 (14%) continued IFX treatment, 6 (10.5%) received other biological treatment, and 3 (5.3%) switched to an immunomodulator. Therapy-free remission was significantly higher in the ICR group when compared to the IFX group (40% vs 12%, p < 0.001).

	ICR group (N=60)	IFX group (N=57)
Total follow-up time (y), median (ICR)	11 (9-14)	13 (9-15)
Prophylactic immunomodulator usage, n (%)	26 (43.3)	35 (61.4)
			P-values
Clinical remission, n (%)	24 (40)	15 (26.3)	0.117
Therapy-free remission, n (%)	24 (40)	7 (12.3)	<0.001
(Re-)resection, n (%)	5 (8.3)	33 (57.9)	<0.001

Conclusion

After 10 years of follow-up, the clinical remission rate without therapy switch was comparable between both groups, highlighting the long-term durability of both treatment approaches. The majority of IFX patients needed ICR within 10 years of follow-up. 40% of the ICR group did not require any additional therapy further supporting ICR as first-line treatment option in ileal CD.

References

Ponsioen, C. Y., de Groof, E. J., Eshuis, E. J., Gardenbroek, T. J., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Hart, A., Warusavitarne, J., Buskens, C. J., van Bodegraven, A. A., Brink, M. A., Consten, E. C. J., van Wagensveld, B. A., Rijk, M. C. M., Crolla, R. M. P. H., Noomen, C. G., Houdijk, A. P. J., Mallant, R. C., Boom, M., Marsman, W. A., Stockmann, H. B., … LIR!C study group (2017). Laparoscopic ileocaecal resection versus infliximab for terminal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomised controlled, open-label, multicentre trial. The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2(11), 785–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30248-0

Disclosure

GD'H served as a consultant for AbbVie, Alimentiv, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Exeliom Biosciences, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Takeda; and has received speakers bureau fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Takeda.

Introduction

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are at an increased risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. CMV infection in acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) may worsen disease severity and clinical outcomes. Current guidelines recommend colonic biopsies for the exclusion of CMV in all patients with ASUC. One study found that CMV positivity in ASUC was associated with greater need for rescue therapy, longer hospital length of stay (LOS) and higher readmission rates but found no difference in rate of colectomy.¹ We aimed to investigate the impact of positive CMV result on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with ASUC.

Aims & Methods

A retrospective review included all ASUC presentations to a quaternary hospital over a 10-year period based on modified Truelove and Witts’ criteria. ASUC presentations were grouped based on CMV positivity as determined by colonic biopsy. Data on pre-admission medications was collected. Data was collected on rates of rescue therapy, referral to colorectal surgery, colectomy, total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Outcomes assessed included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 30- and 90-day readmission rates, 30- and 90-day mortality rates and mean LOS.

Results

A total of 172 ASUC presentations were identified. Of these, 133 had available colonic biopsy CMV results. 11 patients (8%) had positive CMV. Positive CMV result was significantly associated with increased need for TPN (36% vs 11%, p=0.02), ICU admission (27% vs 5%, p=0.004) and referral to colorectal surgery (82% vs 43%, p=0.01). Patients with CMV had longer LOS (27.1±14.0 vs 11.0±7.4, p=0.003). There were no significant differences in rates of rescue therapy, inpatient colectomy, readmission or mortality rates. 9 of the patients (82%) were treated with ganciclovir or valganciclovir. Patients on maintenance advanced UC therapies, including biologics and small molecule inhibitors, had significantly higher rate of CMV (22% vs 5%, p=0.01). Biologic therapy alone was associated with higher rate of CMV (24% vs 7%, p=0.02), whereas small molecule inhibitor alone was not (p=0.6). Pre-admission use of 5-aminosalicylates, high dose steroids, thiopurines or combination therapies were not associated with CMV positivity.

Table 1: Comparison data of clinical outcomes in ASUC between patients with and without CMV positivity on colonic biopsy

	CMV on biopsy		p-value
	Positive	Negative
Rescue therapy (n)	7 (64%)	44 (36%)	p=0.07
TPN (n)	4 (36%)	14 (11%)	p=0.02*
Referral to colorectal surgery (n)	9 (82%)	52 (43%)	p=0.01*
Inpatient colectomy (n)	3 (27%)	14 (11%)	p=0.13
ICU admission (n)	3 (27%)	6 (5%)	p=0.004*
Readmission at 90 days (n)	4 (40%)	23 (19%)	p=0.11
Mortality at 90 days (n)	1 (9%)	2 (2%)	p=0.11
Length of stay (days)	27.1 ± 14.0	11.0 ± 7.4	p=0.003*

Conclusion

Patients with CMV positive colonic biopsies tend to require more inpatient interventions, including increased need for TPN, ICU admission, referral to colorectal surgery and longer hospital length of stay. Despite more complex admission course of ASUC patients with concurrent CMV infection, these patients were not observed to have worse outcomes than those without CMV diagnosis. Maintenance biologic and small molecule inhibitor use was associated with higher rates of CMV, reflecting the immunosuppressant effects of advanced UC therapies. CMV detection needs to be considered as a potential exacerbating factor in disease severity.

References

1. Huang D, Rennie M, Krasovec A, Nagubandi S, Liu S, Ge E, Khehra B, Au M, Sivagnanam S, Kwan V, Rogge C, Mitrev N, Kariyawasam V. Impact of cytomegalovirus on outcomes in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective observational study. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2024 Mar 28;15:20406223241233203. doi: 10.1177/20406223241233203. PMID: 38560721; PMCID: PMC10981253.

Introduction

In the southwest Netherlands, hospitals collaborate to provide high quality, uniform care for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To achieve this, a care pathway (CP) was implemented for treating IBD with biologics and small molecules (1). The CP consists of protocols addressing different stages in IBD treatment, such as initiation and switching of therapy, frequency and type of follow-up. This study assessed the adherence to the CP and identified barriers and facilitators to its implementation.

Aims & Methods

A mixed-methods study was conducted. Quantitative data was used to evaluate the adherence to different protocols of the CP and was collected retrospectively from electronic health records (EHRs) from December 2020 until March 2023. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were used to identify barriers and facilitators, using the Extended Normalisation Theory. Surveys were sent to all healthcare providers and interviews were conducted with gastroenterologists, IBD-nurses, healthcare assistants, and IT-personnel.

Results

A total of 299 patients were included. Adherence to the CP regarding the documentation of travel plans and vaccination status improved after implementing the CP (15% pre-implementation vs. 33% post-implementation), as well as written communication with general practitioners (31% vs. 83%) and body weight registration (12% vs. 50%). Among patients switching medication, 25% had a repeated screening for HIV, tuberculosis, and hepatitis B and C documented if prior tests were over a year old. Post-implementation, scheduling outpatient visits were more closely aligned with CP recommendations across CP protocols (57% vs. 100%), as did blood test ordering (10% vs. 44%). Disease activity scoring with validated questionnaires remained low (7% vs. 21%).  Adherence to registering medication adherence, current smoking status, and side effects during annual outpatient visits remained low (18% vs. 40%).
Of 85 surveys, 42 were completed, and 11 interviews were conducted. Facilitators were improving collaboration between healthcare providers and the potential to standardise care. Barriers included the complexity of the use in EHRs, difficulty for healthcare providers to change their current routine, and the heterogeneity of IBD.

Conclusion

A CP for the treatment of IBD with biologics and small molecules has been implemented to improve IBD care, however, adherence appears to be challenging, partially contributed to the difficulty healthcare providers experience in changing their behaviour. The gradual improvement indicates that increased familiarity with the CP may enhance adoption. Discrepancies between performed and documented tasks in EHRs may also contribute to lower adherence rates, which could be improved by audit and feedback sessions.

References

1. van Linschoten R, van Leeuwen N, Nieboer D, Birnie E, Scherpenzeel M, Verweij KE, et al. Value-based care pathway for inflammatory bowel disease: a protocol for the multicentre longitudinal non-randomised parallel cluster IBD Value study with baseline period. (2044-6055 (Electronic))

Disclosure

Drs. Visser received speaker fees from Lilly outside the submitted work. Prof. Dr. van der Woude reports grants from Pfizer and Janssen and personal fees from AbbVie and Celltrion outside the submitted work. Dr. van Noord reports personal fees from Janssen, Takeda, and Falk outside the submitted work. Dr. West reports personal fees from AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer outside the submitted work.