Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.Background: In the randomized POINTER... Show moreObjective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention.Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications.Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33–2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56–7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0–0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar.Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. Show less
Objective: The use and impact of antibiotics and the impact of causative pathogens on clinical outcomes in a large real-world cohort covering the entire clinical spectrum of necrotizing... Show moreObjective: The use and impact of antibiotics and the impact of causative pathogens on clinical outcomes in a large real-world cohort covering the entire clinical spectrum of necrotizing pancreatitis remain unknown.Summary Background Data: International guidelines recommend broad-spectrum antibiotics in patients with suspected infected necrotizing pancreatitis. This recommendation is not based on high-level evidence and clinical effects are unknown.Materials and Methods: This study is a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort of 401 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis in 15 Dutch centers (2010-2019). Across the patient population from the time of admission to 6 months postadmission, multivariable regression analyses were used to analyze (1) microbiological cultures and (2) antibiotic use.Results: Antibiotics were started in 321/401 patients (80%) administered at a median of 5 days (P25-P75: 1-13) after admission. The median duration of antibiotics was 27 days (P25-P75: 15-48). In 221/321 patients (69%) infection was not proven by cultures at the time of initiation of antibiotics. Empirical antibiotics for infected necrosis provided insufficient coverage in 64/128 patients (50%) with a pancreatic culture. Prolonged antibiotic therapy was associated with Enterococcus infection (OR 1.08 [95% CI 1.03-1.16], P=0.01). Enterococcus infection was associated with new/persistent organ failure (OR 3.08 [95% CI 1.35-7.29], P<0.01) and mortality (OR 5.78 [95% CI 1.46-38.73], P=0.03). Yeast was found in 30/147 cultures (20%).Discussion: In this nationwide study of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, the vast majority received antibiotics, typically administered early in the disease course and without a proven infection. Empirical antibiotics were inappropriate based on pancreatic cultures in half the patients. Future clinical research and practice must consider antibiotic selective pressure due to prolonged therapy and coverage of Enterococcus and yeast. Improved guidelines on antimicrobial diagnostics and therapy could reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and improve clinical outcomes. Show less
Hendriks, C.; Jansen, J.M.; Smit, M.; Smulders, L.M., Popma, A.; Pol, T. van der 2023
Background and AimsWe aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn’s disease [CD] in stable... Show moreBackground and AimsWe aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn’s disease [CD] in stable clinical and biochemical remission.DesignWe conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the 2-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit [iNMB] at relevant willingness to accept [WTA] levels.ResultsWe randomized 174 patients to the intervention [n = 113] and control [n = 61] groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: −0.017, 95% confidence interval [−0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (−€943, [−€2226; €1367]) over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (−€2545, [−€2780; −€2192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1058]) were higher. Cost–utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 [−€2099; €2050], €69 [−€2908; €1965] and −€455 [−€4,096; €1984] at WTA levels of €20 000, €50 000 and €80 000, respectively. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53 960 per quality-adjusted life year. Above €53 960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective.ConclusionWhen the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53 960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission. Show less
Background: Despite its effectiveness in treating Crohn's disease, adalimumab is associated with an increased risk of infections and high health-care costs. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes of... Show moreBackground: Despite its effectiveness in treating Crohn's disease, adalimumab is associated with an increased risk of infections and high health-care costs. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes of increased adalimumab dose intervals versus conventional dosing in patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission. Methods: The LADI study was a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial, done in six academic hospitals and 14 general hospitals in the Netherlands. Adults (aged >= 18 years) diagnosed with luminal Crohn's disease (with or without concomitant perianal disease) were eligible when in steroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (defined as Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] score <5, faecal calprotectin <150 mu g/g, and C-reactive protein <10 mg/L) for at least 9 months on a stable dose of 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the intervention group or control group by the coordinating investigator using a secure web-based system with variable block randomisation (block sizes of 6, 9, and 12). Randomisation was stratified on concomitant use of thiopurines and methotrexate. Patients and health-care providers were not masked to group assignment. Patients allocated to the intervention group increased adalimumab dose intervals to 40 mg every 3 weeks at baseline and further to every 4 weeks if they remained in clinical and biochemical remission at week 24. Patients in the control group continued their 2-weekly dose interval. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of persistent flares at week 48 defined as the presence of at least two of the following criteria: HBI score of 5 or more, C-reactive protein 10 mg/L or more, and faecal calprotectin more than 250 mu g/g for more than 8 weeks and a concurrent decrease in the adalimumab dose interval or start of escape medication. The non-inferiority margin was 15% on a risk difference scale. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03172377, and is not recruiting. Findings Between May 3, 2017, and July 6, 2020, 174 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=113) or the control group (n=61). Four patients from the intervention group and one patient from the control group were excluded from the analysis for not meeting inclusion criteria. 85 (50%) of 169 participants were female and 84 (50%) were male. At week 48, the cumulative incidence of persistent flares in the intervention group (three [3%] of 109) was non-inferior compared with the control group (zero; pooled adjusted risk difference 1 center dot 86% [90% CI -0 center dot 35 to 4 center dot 07). Seven serious adverse events occurred, all in the intervention group, of which two (both patients with intestinal obstruction) were possibly related to the intervention. Per 100 person-years, 168 center dot 35 total adverse events, 59 center dot 99 infection-related adverse events, and 42 center dot 57 gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in the intervention group versus 134 center dot 67, 75 center dot 03, and 5 center dot 77 in the control group, respectively. Interpretation The individual benefit of increasing adalimumab dose intervals versus the risk of disease recurrence is a trade-off that should take patient preferences regarding medication and the risk of a flare into account. Show less
Objective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary... Show moreObjective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. Design: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. Results: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). Conclusion: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. Show less
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase in-hibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory... Show moreBACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase in-hibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. METHODS: Patients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index 52), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein 55 mg/L or fecal calprotectin 5250 mg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 83 vedolizumab-and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score -weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81-10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89-4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96-5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14-3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes. Show less
Straatmijer, T.; Biemans, V.B.C.; Visschedijk, M.; Hoentjen, F.; Vries, A. de; Bodegraven, A.A. van; ... ; Initiative Crohn Colitis 2022
Background & AimsClinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitorsin patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative...Show moreBackground & AimsClinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitorsin patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry.MethodsPatients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 μg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias.ResultsOverall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81–10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89–4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15–2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96–5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14–3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06–3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events.ConclusionsTofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes. Show less
Straatmijer, T.; Biemans, V.B.C.; Visschedijk, M.; Hoentjen, F.; Vries, A. de; Bodegraven, A.A. van; ... ; Initiative Crohn Colitis 2022
Background & AimsClinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative... Show moreBackground & AimsClinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry.MethodsPatients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 μg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias.ResultsOverall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81–10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89–4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15–2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96–5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14–3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06–3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events.ConclusionsTofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes. Show less
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic... Show moreBACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean followup period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Show less
Background & AimsPrevious randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis... Show moreBackground & AimsPrevious randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years.MethodsIn this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups.ConclusionsAt long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571. Show less
Aims: Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets p40, a shared subunit of the cytokines interleukin [IL]-12 and IL-23. It is registered for the treatment of inflammatory bowel... Show moreAims: Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets p40, a shared subunit of the cytokines interleukin [IL]-12 and IL-23. It is registered for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases. We assessed the 2-year effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in a real world, prospective cohort of patients with Crohn's disease [CD].Methods: Patients who started ustekinumab were prospectively enrolled in the nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis [ICC] Registry. At weeks 0, 12, 24, 52 and 104, clinical remission Harvey Bradshaw Index <= 4 points], biochemical remission (faecal calprotectin <= 200 mu g/g and/or C-reactive protein <= 5 mg/L], perianal fistula remission, extra-intestinal manifestations, ustekinumab dosage and safety outcomes were determined. The primary outcome was corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 104.Results; In total, 252 CD patients with at least 2 years of follow-up were included. Of all included patients, the proportion of patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission was 32.3% [81/251], 41.4% [104/251], 39% [97/249] and 34.0% [84/247] at weeks 12, 24, 52 and 104, respectively. In patients with combined clinical and biochemical disease activity at baseline [n = 122], the corticosteroid-free clinical remission rates were 23.8% [29/122], 35.2% [43/122], 40.0% [48/120] and 32.8% [39/119] at weeks 12, 24, 52 and 104, respectively. The probability of remaining on ustekinumab treatment after 52 and 104 weeks in all patients was 64.3% and 54.8%, respectively. The main reason for discontinuing treatment after 52 weeks was loss of response [66.7%]. No new safety issues were observed.Conclusion: After 104 weeks of ustekinumab treatment, one-third of CD patients were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission. Show less
BACKGROUNDInfected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is... Show moreBACKGROUNDInfected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown.METHODSWe conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up.RESULTSA total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThis trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. Show less
Objective The aim of this study was to describe the long-term health outcomes of children born to mothers with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and to assess the impact of maternal IBD medication... Show moreObjective The aim of this study was to describe the long-term health outcomes of children born to mothers with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and to assess the impact of maternal IBD medication use on these outcomes.Design We performed a multicentre retrospective study in The Netherlands. Women with IBD who gave birth between 1999 and 2018 were enrolled from 20 participating hospitals. Information regarding disease characteristics, medication use, lifestyle, pregnancy outcomes and long-term health outcomes of children was retrieved from mothers and medical charts. After consent of both parents, outcomes until 5 years were also collected from general practitioners. Our primary aim was to assess infection rate and our secondary aims were to assess adverse reactions to vaccinations, growth, autoimmune diseases and malignancies.Results We included 1000 children born to 626 mothers (381 (61%) Crohn's disease, 225 (36%) ulcerative colitis and 20 (3%) IBD unclassified). In total, 196 (20%) had intrauterine exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-alpha) (60 with concomitant thiopurine) and 240 (24%) were exposed to thiopurine monotherapy. The 564 children (56%) not exposed to anti-TNF-alpha and/or thiopurine served as control group. There was no association between adverse long-term health outcomes and in utero exposure to IBD treatment. We did find an increased rate of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) in case thiopurine was used during the pregnancy without affecting birth outcomes and long-term health outcomes of children. All outcomes correspond with the general age-adjusted population.Conclusion In our study, we found no association between in utero exposure to anti-TNF-alpha and/or thiopurine and the long-term outcomes antibiotic-treated infections, severe infections needing hospital admission, adverse reactions to vaccinations, growth failure, autoimmune diseases and malignancies. Show less
Asscher, V.E.R.; Biemans, V.B.C.; Pierik, M.J.; Dijkstra, G.; Lowenberg, M.; Marel, S. van der; ... ; Dutch Initiative Crohn Colitis IC 2020
Background Few data are available on the effects of age and comorbidity on treatment outcomes of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aims To evaluate the association... Show moreBackground Few data are available on the effects of age and comorbidity on treatment outcomes of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aims To evaluate the association between age and comorbidity with safety and effectiveness outcomes of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in IBD. Methods IBD patients initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab in regular care were enrolled prospectively. Comorbidity prevalence was assessed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Association between age and CCI, both continuously assessed, with safety outcomes (any infection, hospitalisation, adverse events) during treatment, and effectiveness outcomes (clinical response and remission, corticosteroid-free remission, clinical remission combined with biochemical remission) after 52 weeks of treatment were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Results We included 203 vedolizumab- and 207 ustekinumab-treated IBD patients, mean age 42.2 (SD 16.0) and 41.6 (SD 14.4). Median treatment duration 54.0 (IQR 19.9-104.0) and 48.4 (IQR 24.4-55.1) weeks, median follow-up time 104.0 (IQR 103.1-104.0) and 52.0 weeks (IQR 49.3-100.4). On vedolizumab, CCI associated independently with any infection (OR 1.387, 95% CI 1.022-1.883,P = 0.036) and hospitalisation (OR 1.586, 95% CI 1.127-2.231,P = 0.008). On ustekinumab, CCI associated independently with hospitalisation (OR 1.621, 95% CI 1.034-2.541,P = 0.035). CCI was not associated with effectiveness, and age was not associated with any outcomes. Conclusions Comorbidity - but not age - is associated with an increased risk of hospitalisations on either treatment, and with any infection on vedolizumab. This underlines the importance of comorbidity assessment and safety monitoring of IBD patients. Show less
