Introduction

The Epi-IBD cohort is a prospective European population-based cohort of 1,390 patients diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in 2010 and 2011 according to Copenhagen criteria. Of these, 482 were diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease (CD), 817 with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 91 with IBD unclassified (IBDU). The Epi-IBD cohort was established to examine differences in incidence, treatment strategies, disease course and prognosis among IBD patients in Eastern and Western Europe.

Aims & Methods

This study aims to describe the use of biological therapy as well as the treatment prior to biological therapy. IBD patients were followed prospectively from the time of diagnosis until the 31^st December 2020, death, emigration or loss of follow-up. Clinical data on surgery, hospitalizations, and medical treatment, were captured throughout the follow-up period and entered into a validated web-database, www.epi-ibd.org.

Results

During a median follow-up period of 10.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 10.0-11.4) years, 34% (N=165/482) of CD and 15% (N=122/817) of UC patients were started on biological therapy. Biological therapy was initiated within the first year after diagnosis in 16.8% (N=81/482) of all CD and 3.8% (N=31/817) of all UC patients. In median biological therapy was started at 1.0 year (IQR, 0.3-3.1) and 2.7 years (IQR, 1.6-4.0) after CD and UC diagnosis, respectively. First-line biological therapy was infliximab in 74% (N=213/287) and adalimumab in 22% (N=64/287) of the patients. The remaing (N=10/287) received either Golimumab, Vedolizumab, Ustekinumab or were part of a trial/unknown. The sequences of biological therapies are displayed in Sankey diagrams, Figures 1 and 2. Herein illustrated is that 34% (N=56/165) CD and 34% (N=41/122) UC received at least two different biological drugs. Immunomodulators were initiated simultaneously to the first biological therapy in 19% (N=31/165) of CD patients and in 9% (N=11/122) of UC patients. Overall 63% (N=104/165) CD and 51% (N=62/122) UC patients were receiving concomittant immunomodulators with the first biological therapy.
The sequences of therapy leading up to biological therapy are displayed in Sankey diagrams, Figures 3 and 4. Herein illustrated is that the most common sequence of treatment before the first biological therapy for CD was 1) Steroids, 2) Immunomodulators (21%, N=34/165), and for UC was 1) 5-aminosalicylic-acid (5ASA), 2) Steroids, 3) Immunomodulators (39%, N=48/122). Prior to the first biological therapy one, two and three or more courses of systemic steroid were used in 41%, 28% and 17% (N=67, 47 and 28) of CD patients and 43%, 24% and 26% (N=52, 29 and 32) of UC patients. In 14% (N=23/165) and 7% (N=9/122) of CD and UC patients, systemic steroids were not used prior to first biological therapy. In patients having immunomodulators prior to biological therapy, these were administered for a median of 0.5 (IQR, 0.1-1.9) years and 1.1 (IQR, 0.2-3,2) years in CD and UC, respectively. For 5ASA this was 0.8 (IQR, 0.2-1.5) years for CD and 2.2 (IQR, 0.8-4.3) years for UC.

Conclusion

In this multicenter European population-based cohort, different prescribing patterns for biologics emerge: 34% of CD and 15% of UC patients received biologics within 10 years after diagnosis. Infliximab was the most common first-line biological therapy. Only about half of the patients received concomitant immunomodulators. Prior to the first biological therapy, most patients were exposed to systemic steroids and many to repeated courses.

Introduction

‘Biologic therapies’ are the mainstay treatment for moderate to severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), resulting in fewer hospitalisations, adequate treatment response and mucosal healing. ^[1] Adalimumab, Golimumab, Ustekinumab & Risankizumab are administered subcutaneously (SC), Infliximab and Vedolizumab are administered intravenously (IV), and have additionally been available SC since 2020. SC Infliximab was used during the pandemic to limit exposure to hospitals & reduce risk of Covid-19, ^[2] as well as for convenience.

Aims & Methods

We explore patient’s views of IV and SC administered treatments via a paper-based survey for those patients who were on IV treatment when attending for infusions, and a telephone survey on patients with IBD who have been on SC treatment.

Results

IV survey

• 122 completed the survey.
• 50/122 (41.0%) were on Vedolizumab (41.0%), 64 (52.5%) Infliximab, 8 (6.6%) others / didn’t specify.
• 25/120 (20.8%) had been on IV therapy for 2-6 months, 17 (14.2%) for 7-12 months, 29 (24.2%) for 1-3 years, 21 (17.5%) for 3-5 years, 21 (17.5%) for >5 years.
• 107/120 (89.2%) rated treatments as easy, 13 (10.8%) intermediate, 0 difficult.
• 25/112 (22.3%) were previously on SC injections. Of this group: 15/24 (60.0%) favoured the IV route, 9 (36.0%) favoured the SC route.
• 4/15 who favoured the IV route “did not like to inject themselves” or “found it difficult”. 3/15 preferred IV route as they were being monitored.
• 104/110 (94.5%) attended all scheduled blood tests, 4 (3.6%) attended most of them
• 106/109 (97.2%) attended all OP appointments, 2 (1.8%) attend most
• 91/111 (82.0%) had no concerns, 10 (9.0%) had concerns over side effects (SE)
• 31/104 (29.8%) reported SE.
• 6/29 (20.7%) stated SE not affected their quality of life (QoL), 12 (41.4%) little impact QoL, 10 (34.5%) moderate impact, 1 (3.4%) severe impact.
• 96/105 (91.4%) would recommend IV route

SC survey

• 106/113 (93.8%) completed the survey..
• 54/106 patients were on Adalimumab (50.9%), 24 (22.6%) Ustekinumab, 13 (12.2%) Vedolizumab , 13 (12.3%) Infliximab, 2 (1.9%) Golimumab
• 10/106 (9.4%) for 1-6 months, 21 (19.8%) for 6-12 months, 33 (31.1%) for 1-3yrs, 21 (19.8%) for 3-5 years and 20 (18.9%) for >5 years.
• 89/106 (83.9%) rated treatment administration as easy, 10 (9.4%) intermediate, 2 (1.9%) difficult
• 59/106 (55.7%) were previously on IV infusions. Of this group: 43/59 (72.9%) favoured the SC route, 8 (13.6%) favoured IV, and 8 (13.6%) no preference.
• 24/43 who favoured who favoured SC route stated ‘convenient”, “easy”, “not have to attend hospital” as reasons.
• 86/106 (81.1%) attended all scheduled blood tests, 5 (4.7%) attended most of them,
• 102/106 (96.2%) attended all OP appointments, 3 (2.8%) attend most,
• 68/106 (64.2%) had no concerns, 21 (19.81%) concerned about fewer face to face episodes
• 40/106 (37.7%) reported SE. 8 (20%) skin reactions
• 11/40 (27.5%) stated SE not affected their quality of life (QoL), 14 (35%) little impact QoL, 9 (22.5%) moderate impact, 6 (15%) severe impact.
• 87/106 (82.1%) recommend SC route

Conclusion

The survey found that both IV and SC treatments were easy to administer for the vast majority (89.2% & 84.9%), For patients on SC therapy who previously had IV infusions, 75.6% preferred SC as “convenient”, “easy” and “no (need to attend) hospital”. For patients on IV therapy who previously had SC, 60.0% preferred IV as “did not ned to self inject / found it difficult”, and “preferred monitoring”. Overall there are high levels of satisfaction with 91.4% of patients on IV treatment, and 82.1% of patients on SC treatment recommend their current route of administration.

References

1. E J Mao, G S Hazlewood, G G Kaplan, L Peyrin-Biroulet, and A N Ananthakrishnan, Systematic review with meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of immunosuppressants and biologics for reducing hospitalisation and surgery in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 45: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13847
2. P J Smith, L Critchley, D Storey, et al, Efficacy and Safety of Elective Switching from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Infliximab [CT-P13]: A Multicentre Cohort Study, Journal of Crohn's and Colitis, Volume 16, Issue 9, September 2022, Pages 1436-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac053

Introduction

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as an important therapeutic class for the management of several immune-mediated conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but they are associated with several side effects. A renewed attention to the safety profile of this drug class has been driven by increasing reports of JAK inhibitor-induced acneiform eruptions seen in clinical trials and real-life practice.

Aims & Methods

We aimed to investigate the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes of this condition in patients with IBD. This was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study that consecutively enrolled patients with IBD who were treated with JAK inhibitors and subsequently developed acne. The primary objective was to evaluate the clinical characteristics of acne presentation. Secondary objectives included determining acne prevalence, assessing its impact on quality of life, and evaluating the effectiveness of treatments.

Results

Of the 2,183 JAK inhibitor-treated patients with IBD screened, 272 developed acne and were included in the study. The crude prevalence rates of acne were 15.9% for upadacitinib, 4.3% for tofacitinib, and 1.9% for filgotinib, with dose-dependent relationships observed for upadacitinib and tofacitinib. Acne predominantly affected patients aged 30–50 years, with most cases being mild to moderate in severity. Acneiform eruptions most frequently involved the face (89%), followed by the back (33%) and chest (27%). Lesion characteristics were documented in 159 patients; papules (82%), pustules (52%), and comedones (42%) were the most frequently reported. In contrast, nodules (19%) and cysts (18%) – features associated with more severe disease – were less commonly observed. Among the 213 patients with available time-to-onset data, the median time to acne onset following JAK inhibitor initiation was 47 days (IQR: 28–98 days). Patients with a previous history of acne vulgaris were significantly more likely to develop severe drug-induced acne (p<0.0001). Although corticosteroids are known to contribute to acne, our data did not demonstrate an association between concomitant steroid use and increased acne severity. There was also no difference in time to onset or resolution of acne between the steroid-treated and non-steroid treated groups. A third of patients reported a negative impact on psychosocial well-being, and 40% required pharmacological intervention. Topical therapies were required for 106 patients (39%), with 52 (49%) showing acne improvement or resolution. Systemic oral agents were required for 38 patients (14%), including 25 patients who did not respond or had a partial response to topical therapies. Antibiotics were prescribed to 29 patients (most commonly from the tetracycline class), leading to acne improvement or resolution in 14 patients (48%). Oral isotretinoin was required for 8 patients (3%) and was effective in all but one patient. Eighteen percent of patients who developed acne (2.2% of total cohort) required a JAK inhibitor dose reduction or discontinuation, although most did not have severe disease.

Conclusion

This study is the first to characterise this adverse event in JAK inhibitor-treated patients with IBD and presents the largest cohort of JAK inhibitor-induced acne cases to date across all immune-mediated diseases. JAK inhibitor-induced acne is a common adverse effect resulting in significant psychological burden. Early identification, proactive counselling, and timely interventions, such as dose reduction or referral to dermatology, are crucial in managing this side effect.

Introduction

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, condition linked to a type 2 inflammatory response and frequently associated to other atopic conditions. EoE may presents either sporadically, or with aggregation of cases within a same family. Limited information has been provided on the differences in clinical characteristics and disease features between sporadic and familiar EoE, largely due to the lack of large patient cohorts.

Aims & Methods

To find differences in sporadic and familiar cases of EoE which may support distinct clinical management, a cross-sectional analysis of the multicenter EoE CONNECT registry was performed. Demographic and clinical from patients recruited at 42 hospitals in 4 European countries were extracted on March 28th, 2025. Information extracted included 1) age at diagnosis and diagnostic delay; 2) symptoms leading to diagnosis; 3) disease endoscopic and histologic features at diagnosis; and 4) atopic concomitances.

Results

	S-EoE	F-EoE
Age at diagnosis (n= 3,179) <18 years old	18.5%	30.6%
Inflammatory Score (n= 2,723)	1.62 ± 1.3	1.93 ± 1.32
Fibrosis Score (n=2,723)	1.04 ± 1.04	0.97 ± 1.08
Fibrosis (n=1,701)	58.6 %	62.8 %
EoE-Phenotype (n=3,017)
Inflammatory	75.9 %	79.6 %
Mixed	12.6 %	8.6 %
Stricturing	11.5 %	11.8 %

Overall, 4,053 patients (75.4 % males, mean age 33.3 ±15.2 years) were analyzed, including 3028 (74.7 %) sporadic (S-EoE), 714 (17.6%) without familiar data and 311 (7.7 %) familiar (F-EoE) cases including 89 families. Among the family forms, n= 76 families showed 2 affected members, n= 11 presented 3 members, and n= 2 with 4 members. In 85/89 families we identified the index case consisting in sons (13), parents (23), siblings (38), or other distant kinships.
The F-EoE forms were diagnosed at younger mean ± SD ages than S-EoE (29.8±15.6 vs. 33.7±15.1; p<0.001) and included a higher proportion of pediatric patients (considered as those below 18 at diagnosis; 30.6% vs. 18.5%; p<0.001)
Symptoms leading to EoE diagnosis were similar across study groups, with slightly higher presences of abdominal pain (as they included more pediatric cases; 7.7% vs. 4.5%; p=0.01) and chocking episodes (7.7% vs. 4.5%; p=0.01) among F-EoE.
Endoscopy presented more severe features according to EREFS among F-EoE (mean ± SD being 2.86 ± 1.66 vs. 2.64 ± 1.68; p=0.054) at the expense of both fibrotic and inflammatory features, despite only the later reach statistical significance (1.93 ± 1.32 vs. 1.62 ± 1.3; p<0.001). Esophageal biopsies exhibited higher mean ± SD peak eosinophil counts in F-EoE cases (57.11 ± 40.7 vs. 52.87 ± 37.97; p=0.04).
F-EoE were more allergic patients, as they presented a higher mean ± SD number of concomitant atopies (1.44 ± 1.25 vs. 1.25 ± 1.22; p=0.009) and all were more common among them, with conjunctivitis and hives reaching statistical significance (p=0.01 and p=0.002 respectively). Overall, a higher proportion of F-EoE had at least one atopy compared to S-EoE (69.4 % vs. 63.8%).

Conclusion

F-EoE seems to present more severely, with earlier onset, more inflammatory load in endoscopy and biopsies and higher concomitant allergic manifestations.

Introduction

Among the constellation of symptoms attributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, dysphagia emerged as a rather rare manifestation. This post-COVID-19 dysphagia seems to arise from esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) disorders either triggered or fueled by SARS-CoV-2 infection. New-onset dysphagia is associated with EGJ-outflow obstruction (EGJ-oo) whereas post-COVID-19 aggravation of dysphagia is associated with Achalasia. Available evidence to guide treatment for patients with post-COVID-19 dysphagia are currently lacking.

Aims & Methods

To offer an evidence-based therapeutic approach for patients presenting with post-COVID-19 dysphagia. Patients presenting with post-COVID-19 dysphagia between January 2021-December 2022, underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, esophagram, computed tomography and two esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) studies 4-8 months apart. The Chicago classification 4.0 was used for HRM diagnosis. SARS-CoV-2 infection was documented through at least one positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Demographics, history of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, Eckardt scores (ES) were also recorded. A step-up therapeutic approach was applied and evaluated. All patients received proton pump inhibitor (PPI-20mg rabeprazole od) therapy as a first step. If dysphagia and/or vomiting persisted or the patient experienced bolus impaction then pneumatic dilatation (PD) with a rigid 30mm balloon was applied. If dysphagia persisted despite PD then the patient underwent 35mm-PD or per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), based on personal preference and anesthesia eligibility. In the occurrence of type III Achalasia, POEM was offered as second-line treatment. Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Results

Thirty-two patients (23 females; mean age±SD: 61±8years) were included, eighteen with new-onset dysphagia (median ES:6) and fourteen with aggravation of pre-existing dysphagia (median ES:8 vs 3). All patients with new-onset dysphagia had EGJ-oo whereas those with pre-existing dysphagia exhibited either type II (N=13) or type III (N=1) Achalasia. A female predominance was evident in the EGJ-oo group (female:male ratio of 2.7:1). Achalasia patients exhibited higher median IRP values compared to the EGJ-oo group: 23.1(1.5) vs 17.4(1.7) (P<0.001). In patients with EGJ-oo, dysphagia resolved under PPI treatment over a median(IQR) of 4(2.2) months: IRP 13.4(1.2) vs 17.4(1.7) at baseline (P<0.05). PPI treatment was not effective in the group with pre-existing dysphagia (P=0.8) therefore PD at 30mm was applied in 13 patients and POEM in one patient with type III Achalasia. Interestingly, all patients within the PD-treated Achalasia group required further treatment escalation either PD at 35mm (N=6) or POEM (N=7) for resolution of symptoms. In the 35mm-PD group ES dropped from 8 to 3 (P<0.05) whereas in the POEM-treated group ES dropped from 8 to 1 (P<0.05). POEM was more effective in reducing symptoms compared to 35mm-PD (P=0.003).

Conclusion

Based on HRM, two post-COVID-19 dysphagia phenotypes can be identified each requiring different management. New-onset dysphagia is associated with EGJ-oo and seems to resolve under PPI over time. On the contrary, post-COVID-19 aggravation of dysphagia corresponds to type II or III Achalasia and requires aggressive endoscopic treatment either PD with a larger caliber balloon or POEM, with the latter yielding more favorable results.

References

1. Manolakis A, Trikola A, Chougias D, et al. An elusive manifestation of COVID-19: dysphagia due to esophago-gastric junction disorders. United European Gastroenterology Journal 2022; 10 (Supplement 8)
2. Webler K, Carpenter J, Hamilton V, et al. Dysphagia Characteristics of Patients Post SARS-CoV-2 During Inpatient Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2022;103:336-341
3. Lee MY, Oh BM, Seo HG. Prolonged Dysphagia After a COVID-19 Infection in a Patient With Parkinson Disease. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2021;100:837-839

Disclosure

None

Introduction

Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a life-threatening complication of ulcerative colitis, requiring hospitalization and potentially surgery. Initial treatment relies on intravenous corticosteroids, but non-responders require rescue therapies such as infliximab or cyclosporine. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), including upadacitinib, and tofacitinib, rapidly modulate immune response and have shown promise in managing ASUC, based on small-scale studies.

Aims & Methods

This single-center retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and tofacitinib, as a rescue therapy in patients with ASUC not responding to intravenous corticosteroids and/or infliximab who were hospitalized during the period from May 2023 to October 2024. Upadacitinib was administered at a dose of 45 or 60mg/day during hospitalization, with the higher dose reduced to 45mg/day upon discharge. Tofacitinib was administered at 30 mg/day during hospitalization, with the dose reduced to 20mg/day upon discharge. Patient outcome was assessed by partial Mayo score, endoscopic Mayo score (eMayo), and laboratory markers (CRP, hemoglobin, albumin, and fecal calprotectin).

Results

The cohort included 15 patients with ASUC who received JAKi as rescue therapy (8 males, 10 with extensive colitis; 73.3% with prior failure of infliximab): 13 upadacitinib (45mg and 60mg daily in 4 and 9 patients, respectively) and 2 tofacitinib. All patients had failed on intravenous corticosteroids, and one also failed on infliximab as a rescue therapy. All but one patient responded to JAKi and were discharged. One patient with no response underwent a colectomy. Endoscopy was performed at a median time of 8 weeks, with 57 % of patients achieving endoscopic remission (eMayo ≤ 1). During a median follow-up of 26 weeks after initiation of JAKi, 9 patients continued the treatment, 8 on upadacitinib and 1 on tofacitinib. One patient required colectomy, four were switched to another biologic, and one patient (a 76-year-old woman) died of pneumonia one month after starting therapy with JAKi. Within the first 3 months after hospital discharge, no further patients underwent a colectomy.

Conclusion

JAK inhibitors seem to be an effective rescue therapy for ASUC in patients who have already failed infliximab treatment. However, caution is needed in elderly patients.