Introduction A substantial proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on intravenous infliximab require dose intensification. Accessing additional intravenous infliximab is labour-intensive and expensive, depending on insurance and pharmaceutical reimbursement. Observational data suggest that subcutaneous infliximab may offer a convenient and safe alternative to maintain disease remission in patients requiring dose-intensified infliximab. A prospective, controlled trial is required to confirm that subcutaneous infliximab is as effective as dose-intensified intravenous infliximab, to identify predictors of disease flare and to establish the role of subcutaneous infliximab therapeutic drug monitoring.Methods and analysis The DISCUS-IBD trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label non-inferiority study comparing the rate of disease flares in participants randomised to continue dose-intensified intravenous infliximab to those switched to subcutaneous infliximab after 48 weeks. Participants are adult patients with IBD in sustained corticosteroid-free remission on any regimen of dose-intensified infliximab up to a maximum of 10 mg/kg 4-weekly intravenously. Participants allocated to intravenous infliximab will continue infliximab at the same dose-intensified regimen they were receiving at study enrolment. Subcutaneous infliximab dosing will be stratified by prior intravenous infliximab dosing. Clinical (Harvey-Bradshaw Index, partial Mayo score), biochemical (C reactive protein, faecal calprotectin), pharmacokinetic (drug-level±antidrug antibodies) and qualitative data are collected 12-weekly until study conclusion at week 48. 13 sites across Australia will participate in recruitment to reach a calculated sample size of 120 participants.Ethics and dissemination Multisite ethics approval was obtained from the Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at The Alfred Hospital under a National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) agreement (HREC/90559/Alfred-2022; Local Reference: Project 618/22, version 1.6, 2 March 2023). Findings will be reported at national and international gastroenterology meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUS-IBD was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) prior to commencing recruitment.Trial registration number ACTRN12622001458729.

Anti tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs increase the risk of serious respiratory infection and impair protective immunity following pneumococcal and influenza vaccination. Here we report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immune responses and breakthrough infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, who are treated either with the anti-TNF antibody, infliximab, or with vedolizumab targeting a gut-specific anti-integrin that does not impair systemic immunity. Geometric mean [SD] anti-S RBD antibody concentrations are lower and half-lives shorter in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following two doses of BNT162b2 (566.7 U/mL [6.2] vs 4555.3 U/mL [5.4], p <0.0001; 26.8 days [95% CI 26.2 – 27.5] vs 47.6 days [45.5 – 49.8], p <0.0001); similar results are also observed with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (184.7 U/mL [5.0] vs 784.0 U/mL [3.5], p <0.0001; 35.9 days [34.9 – 36.8] vs 58.0 days [55.0 – 61.3], p value < 0.0001). One fifth of patients fail to mount a T cell response in both treatment groups. Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections are more frequent (5.8% (201/3441) vs 3.9% (66/1682), p = 0.0039) in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, and the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection is predicted by peak anti-S RBD antibody concentration after two vaccine doses. Irrespective of the treatments, higher, more sustained antibody levels are observed in patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination. Our results thus suggest that adapted vaccination schedules may be required to induce immunity in at-risk, anti-TNF-treated patients.

Abstract Background Because of COVID-19 public health restrictions, telemedicine has replaced conventional outpatient follow up for most patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with biologic drugs. Innovative solutions to facilitate remote therapeutic drug monitoring are therefore required. Low-volume intracapillary blood sampling can be undertaken by patients at home and samples returned by post to central laboratories. Methods We sought to report the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on requests for therapeutic drug monitoring and the equivalence, acceptability and effectiveness of low-volume intracapillary fingerprick sampling compared to conventional venepuncture. Drug and antidrug antibody levels were measured using standard ELISAs. Results Therapeutic drug monitoring requests for adalimumab (96.5 [70.5 - 106] per week to 52 [33.5 - 57.0], p < 0.001) but not infliximab (184.5 [161.2 - 214.2] to 161 [135 - 197.5], p = 0.34) reduced during the first UK stay-at-home lockdown compared with the preceding six months. Fingerprick sampling was equivalent to conventional venepuncture for adalimumab (Figure 1), infliximab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab drug and anti-adalimumab and -infliximab antibody levels. The median (IQR) volume of serum obtained using intracapillary sampling was 195µL (130–210). More than 87% (90/103) patients agreed that intracapillary testing was easy and 69% (71/103) preferred it to conventional venepuncture (Figure 2). In routine care, 75.3% (58/77) patients returned two blood samples within 14 days to permit remote assessment of biologic therapeutic drug monitoring. Conclusion Therapeutic drug monitoring can be undertaken using patient-led remote intracapillary blood sampling and has the potential to be a key adjunct to telemedicine in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

BACKGROUND:Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). AIM:To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab. RESULTS:In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure. CONCLUSION:Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Infliximab attenuates serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whether this is a class effect, or if anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] level influences serological responses, remains unknown. METHODS:Seroprevalence and the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody responses were measured in surplus serum from 11 422 (53.3% [6084] male; median age 36.8 years) patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, stored at six therapeutic drug monitoring laboratories between January 29 and September 30, 2020. Data were linked to nationally held SARS-CoV-2 PCR results to July 11, 2021. RESULTS:Rates of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar across treatment groups. Seroprevalence rates were lower in infliximab- and adalimumab- than vedolizumab-treated patients (infliximab: 3.0% [178/5893], adalimumab: 3.0% [152/5074], vedolizumab: 6.7% [25/375], p = 0.003). The magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was similar in infliximab- vs adalimumab-treated patients (median 4.30 cut-off index [COI] [1.94-9.96] vs 5.02 [2.18-18.70], p = 0.164), but higher in vedolizumab-treated patients (median 21.60 COI [4.39-68.10, p < 0.004). Compared to patients with detectable infliximab and adalimumab drug levels, patients with undetectable drug levels [<0.8 mg/L] were more likely to be seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. One-third of patients who had PCR testing prior to antibody testing failed to seroconvert, all were treated with anti-TNF. Subsequent positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was seen in 7.9% [12/152] of patients after a median time of 183.5 days [129.8-235.3], without differences between drugs. CONCLUSION:Anti-TNF treatment is associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid seroprevalence and antibody reactivity when compared to vedolizumab-treated patients. Higher seropositivity rates in patients with undetectable anti-TNF levels support a causal relationship, although confounding factors, such as combination therapy with a immunomodulator, may have influenced the results.

Introduction Anti-drug antibodies can affect biopharmaceutical pharmacokinetics by increasing or decreasing drug clearance. Drug-tolerant (total), unlike drug-sensitive (free), antibody assays permit antibodies to be measured in the presence of drug. We aimed to confirm the positivity threshold of our total anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antibody ELISA assays in healthy volunteers and to use this threshold to report the prevalence of clearing and transient antibodies in patients treated with infliximab and adalimumab. Methods Serum was obtained from 498 anti-TNF-naïve healthy adults recruited to the Exeter 10,000 study and tested for total anti-drug antibodies to infliximab and adalimumab. We used bootstrapping to calculate the 80% one-sided lower confidence interval [CI] of the 99th centile recommended by the FDA to define assay thresholds. We used paired drug and anti-drug antibody levels derived from our national therapeutic drug monitoring service to report the distribution of clearing (antibody positive, drug negative) vs non-clearing (antibody positive, drug positive) antibodies. In patients with at least two test results, antibodies were classified as transient (single positive test with subsequent negative test) or persistent (at least two positive tests). Results The 80% one-sided lower CI of the 99th centile titre for total anti-drug antibody to infliximab and adalimumab were 8.7 AU/mL and 5.9 AU/mL, respectively. Using these thresholds, at the time of last testing, of 7,428 and 4,043 patients treated with infliximab and adalimumab; 21.1% and 8.3% had clearing antibodies and 27.9% and 20.0% had non-clearing antibodies, to infliximab and adalimumab, respectively. Amongst patients with at least two tests, most developed persistent antibodies. Irrespective of anti-TNF drug, or threshold used, less than 10% patients developed transient antibodies. Across both our national TDM cohort and the PANTS study, there were significant associations between anti-drug antibody and drug levels (figure 1). In PANTS, higher anti-drug antibody levels were associated with poorer outcomes at weeks 14 and 54. Conclusions We report lower positivity thresholds for the IDKmonitor® total anti-TNF antibody ELISA assays than the manufacturer, in particular, for adalimumab. Transient antibody formation is uncommon: most patients develop persistent anti-drug antibodies that lead to drug clearance.

We report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immunity and risk of breakthrough infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab, a commonly used anti-TNF drug and those treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific antibody targeting integrin a4b7 that does not impact systemic immunity. In infliximab-treated patients, the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies was reduced 4-6-fold. One fifth of both infliximab- and vedolizumab-treated patients did not mount a T cell response. Antibody half-life was shorter in infliximab-treated patients. Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred more frequently in infliximab-treated patients and the risk was predicted by the level of antibody response after second vaccine dose. Overall, recipients of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine had higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations, higher seroconversion rates, shorter antibody half-life and less breakthrough infections compared to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients. Irrespective of biologic treatment, higher, more sustained antibody levels were observed in patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination. Patients treated with anti-TNF therapy should be offered third vaccine doses.

12-months of diagnosis is associated with a reduced risk of disease progression in CD

Objective Delayed second dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination trades maximal effectiveness for a lower level of immunity across more of the population. We investigated whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab have attenuated serological responses to a single dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Design Antibody responses and seroconversion rates in infliximab-treated patients (n=865) were compared with a cohort treated with vedolizumab (n=428), a gut-selective anti-integrin α4β7 monoclonal antibody. Our primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody concentrations, measured using the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody assay 3–10 weeks after vaccination, in patients without evidence of prior infection. Secondary outcomes were seroconversion rates (defined by a cut-off of 15 U/mL), and antibody responses following past infection or a second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Results Geometric mean (SD) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following BNT162b2 (6.0 U/mL (5.9) vs 28.8 U/mL (5.4) p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4.7 U/mL (4.9)) vs 13.8 U/mL (5.9) p<0.0001) vaccines. In our multivariable models, antibody concentrations were lower in infliximab-treated compared with vedolizumab-treated patients who received the BNT162b2 (fold change (FC) 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.40), p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC 0.39 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.51), p<0.0001) vaccines. In both models, age ≥60 years, immunomodulator use, Crohn’s disease and smoking were associated with lower, while non-white ethnicity was associated with higher, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations. Seroconversion rates after a single dose of either vaccine were higher in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. Conclusion Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection, or a second dose of vaccine, led to seroconversion in most patients. Delayed second dosing should be avoided in patients treated with infliximab. Trial registration number ISRCTN45176516 .

ObjectiveAntitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs impair protective immunity following pneumococcal, influenza and viral hepatitis vaccination and increase the risk of serious respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether infliximab-treated patients with IBD have attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infections.DesignAntibody responses in participants treated with infliximab were compared with a reference cohort treated with vedolizumab, a gut-selective anti-integrin α4β7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired vaccine responses or increased susceptibility to systemic infections. 6935 patients were recruited from 92 UK hospitals between 22 September and 23 December 2020.ResultsRates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar between groups. Seroprevalence was lower in infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (3.4% (161/4685) vs 6.0% (134/2250), p<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analyses confirmed that infliximab (vs vedolizumab; OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.87), p=0.0027) and immunomodulator use (OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92), p=0.012) were independently associated with lower seropositivity. In patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroconversion was observed in fewer infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (48% (39/81) vs 83% (30/36), p=0.00044) and the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was lower (median 0.8 cut-off index (0.2–5.6) vs 37.0 (15.2–76.1), p<0.0001).ConclusionsInfliximab is associated with attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 that were further blunted by immunomodulators used as concomitant therapy. Impaired serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection might have important implications for global public health policy and individual anti-TNF-treated patients. Serological testing and virus surveillance should be considered to detect suboptimal vaccine responses, persistent infection and viral evolution to inform public health policy.Trial registration numberISRCTN45176516.

To inform healthcare policy for immunosuppressed patients there is a need to define SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses. Here we report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced antibody and T cell responses in patients treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF), a commonly used biologic in inflammatory diseases, compared to patients treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific antibody targeting integrin a4b7 that does not impair systemic immunity. In anti-TNF recipients, the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies was reduced five-fold, and rapidly decayed towards the seroconversion threshold by 14 weeks after second dose of vaccine. In contrast, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were sustained up to 16 weeks in vedolizumab-treated patients. Anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody decay was not observed in vaccinated patients previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. T cell responses were absent in one-fifth of anti-TNF and vedolizumab-treated patients after a second dose of either vaccine. Our data have important implications for anti-TNF recipients, including the need for vaccine prioritization, booster doses, and social distancing strategies.

Table 1.Odds ratios for developing ADAb to the subsequent therapy in cases vs. controls for various therapy switch combinations.Data are presented as OR (95% CI) for up to year 1 (Y1), between years 2-3 (Y2-Y3), and between years 3-4 (Y3-Y4) after the therapy switch.

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Gordon et al and Mahmoud & Itzkowitz papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16155 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16175

Summary Background Delay in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is common and contemporary UK studies are lacking. Aim To determine factors associated with, and the consequences of, a prolonged time to diagnosis in IBD. Methods This quality improvement study included 304 adults with a new IBD diagnosis made between January 2014 and December 2017 across 49 general practices (GP) and gastroenterology secondary care services. Outcome measures were demographic, clinical and laboratory factors associated with a delayed time, defined as greater than upper quartile, to: (a) patient presentation (b) GP referral (c) secondary care diagnosis, and factors associated with a complicated disease course (hospitalisation and/or surgery and/or biologic treatment) in the year after diagnosis. Results The median [IQR] diagnosis sub‐intervals were: (a) patient = 2.1 months [0.9‐5.1]; (b) GP = 0.3 months [0.0‐0.9]; (c) secondary care = 1.1 months [0.5‐2.1]. 50% of patients were diagnosed within 4 months and 92% were diagnosed within 2 years of symptom onset. Diagnostic delay was more common in Crohn's disease (7.6 months [3.1‐15.0]) than ulcerative colitis (3.3 months [1.9‐7.3]) ( P < 0.001). Patients who presented as an emergency ( P < 0.001) but not those with a delayed overall time to diagnosis ( P = 0.35) were more likely to have a complicated disease course. Conclusion Time to patient presentation is the largest component of time to IBD diagnosis. Emergency presentation is common and, unlike a delayed time to diagnosis, is associated with a complicated disease course.

Background: Tofacitinib is a partially selective Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of refractory moderate to severe ulcerative colitis [UC]. We sought to define the effectiveness and adverse effects of tofacitinib in a real-world cohort. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of 134 patients with UC [64% male; median age 37 years [range 16-81]; 83% of patients had previously received at least one biologic] treated with tofacitinib from October 2018 to October 2019 in four UK centres. Disease activity was assessed using the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index [SCCAl] or partial Mayo score [PMS], depending on study site. Response and remission were defined as a reduction in SCCAI or PMS of >= 3and SCCAI <= 2 or a PMS <= 1, respectively. Results: Overall, 74% (88/119; 95 confidence interval [CI] 65-81%] patients responded to tofacitinib at Week 8 and steroid-free remission was observed in 44% [47/108; 95% CI 3453%] patients at Week 26. Primary non-response was independently associated with younger age [p= 0.014] and higher C-reactive protein [CRP] levels at baseline [p = 0.004]. Only 23%[3/13] of patients who continued tofacitinib in the setting of primary non-response were in steroid-free remission at Week 26. Prior biologic exposure did not influence response or remission rates. Dose escalation, however, recaptured response in approximately half of patients who had lost response. Dyslipidaemia was observed in 20% [27/134; 95% CI 1428%] of patients, but adverse events necessitating drug withdrawal were uncommon and no venous thromboembolic events occurred. Conclusions: In this multicentre real-world cohort, tofacitinib was well tolerated and clinically effective in a treatment-refractory UC population.

Background: During the first wave of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, restrictive public health measures including prolonged shielding, were recommended by the United Kingdom government for many patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with immunosuppressive and biologic drugs. Low-volume intracapillary blood sampling can be undertaken by patients at home and returned by post and may ensure access to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for all patients irrespective of shielding status.Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional blood sampling methods comparison study to assess the clinical validity and acceptability to patients of low volume intracapillary testing for serum TDM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) compared to conventional venepuncture. Sample types were compared using linear regression and fit-for-purpose equivalence was defined using total allowable error (TEa) rates derived using interassay coefficient of variations from routine clinical practice. Acceptability was assessed using a purpose-designed questionnaire.Findings: The median (IQR) volume of serum obtained using intracapillary sampling was 195µL (130-210). We showed drug level equivalence (slope [95% CI]: TEa vs observed mean % difference) between intracapillary sampling and conventional venepuncture for adalimumab (1·02 [0·90-1·14]: 11·7% vs 2·1%), infliximab (1·08 [0·98-1·18]: 18·3% vs 1·2%), vedolizumab (0·91 [0·85-0·96]: 17·6% vs 4·1%), and ustekinumab (0·92 [0·90-0·94]: 19·4% vs 3·3%). Anti-drug antibody equivalence was observed for anti-adalimumab (0·96 [0·95-0·98]: 24·5% vs 2·1%) and anti-infliximab (0·89 [0·81-0·97]: 17·3% vs 1·3%) antibody levels. Most patients reported that intracapillary testing was easy, convenient, and that they preferred it to conventional venepuncture.Interpretation: Low-volume intracapillary blood sampling was equivalent to conventional venepuncture for the measurement of biologic drug and anti-drug antibodies. Patients preferred intra-capillary testing to conventional venepuncture. Irrespective of future COVID-19 surges, patient-led intracapillary blood sampling is likely to become a key adjunct to telemedicine in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.Funding: Novo Nordisk Foundation. NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility. The Academic Department of Blood Sciences, RDE NHS Trust.Declaration of Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and declare: D.C received honoraria from Ferring and Pfizer outside of this work;N.A.K has consulted for Falk and received honoraria from Falk, Allergan, Pharmacosmos and Takeda for unrelated topics and is a deputy editor of Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Journal;T.A has received unrestricted research grants, advisory board fees, speaker honorariums and support to attend international meetings from AbbVie, Merck, Janssen, Takeda, Ferring, Tillotts, Ferring, Pfizer, NAPP, Celltrion, Hospira for unrelated topics, no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years;no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. R.N, B.H, E.J, S.H, C.R, V.C, K.P, J.R.G and T.J.M have no conflicts of interest to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: The sponsor was the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust and the South West Research Ethics Committee approved the study (IRAS Reference Number: 286396;July 2020).

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Bangma et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15762

SummaryBackgroundColonoscopic surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) leads to earlier detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and reduces CRC‐associated mortality. However, it is limited by poor adherence in practice.AimTo identify missed opportunities to detect IBD‐associated CRC at our hospitalMethodsWe undertook root‐cause analyses to identify patients with missed opportunities to diagnose IBD‐associated CRC. We matched patients with IBD‐associated CRC to patients with CRC in the general population to identify differences in staging at diagnosis and clinical outcomes.ResultsCompared with the general population, patients with IBD were at increased risk of developing CRC (odds ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.6‐3.9], P < 0.001). The mean incidence of IBD‐associated CRC between 1998 and 2019 was 165.4 (IQR 130.4‐199.4) per 100 000 patients and has not changed over the last 20 years. Seventy‐eight patients had IBD‐associated CRC. Forty‐two (54%) patients were eligible for CRC surveillance: 12% (5/42) and 10% (4/42) patients were diagnosed with CRC at an appropriately timed or overdue surveillance colonoscopy, respectively. Interval cancers occurred in 14% (6/42) of patients; 64% (27/42) of patients had a missed opportunity for colonoscopic surveillance where root‐cause analyses demonstrated that 10/27 (37%) patients known to secondary care had not been offered surveillance. Four (15%) patients had a delayed diagnosis of CRC due to failure to account for previous colonoscopic findings. Seventeen (63%) patients were managed by primary care including seven patients discharged from secondary care without a surveillance plan. Matched case‐control analysis did not show significant differences in cancer staging or 10‐year survival outcomes.ConclusionThe incidence of IBD‐associated CRC has remained static. Two‐thirds of patients eligible for colonoscopic surveillance had missed opportunities to diagnose CRC. Surveillance programmes without comprehensive and fully integrated recall systems across primary and secondary care are set to fail.