Abstract Background Sexuality in Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is often a tabu topic. But do patients want to talk about it at all? How familiar are IBD Nurses and MD with this topic, will this routinely be addressed to IBD-patients during their consultations? This study attempted to determine the need for information and the willingness to talk about sexuality among patients, IBD nurses and MDs. The survey was carried out in an outpatient setting in Germany. Methods Each participant completed an anonymous questionnaire, limited to 2 MDs, 2 IBD nurses, 5 patients per site, in order to optain a broad opinion across Germany. All participants received an information sheet about the survey in advance. The completed questionnaire was sent to the evaluators in a sealed envelope. It was possible to complete the questions electronically, but this option was rarely used. Patients were selected randomly without taking into account the extent, duration and severity of the disease or the actual drug therapy. Results 53 MD, 60 IBD nurses and 144 patients (Figure 1) in 39 sites answered the survey. Over half of patients in our cohort don't want to talk about sex if asked (52%). Out of those 48% who want to talk about the topic, do 62% not care who addresses that topic, 24% prefer the IBD nurse and 15% a MD. 93% of patients were never addressed to the topic in their IBD Centre. There was no connection between the wish to talk about sex and age (r = -.06, p = .460) nor between age groups (χ² (3)=0.81, p = .848) or between Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) (χ² (1)=0.29, p = .588). The quality of sexual life does not necessarily appear to be affected, as average values are always relatively high and symptoms are low (Table 1). Nurses and MDs have sufficient knowledge about IBD and Sexuality: Nurses M=3.17/6 (SD = 1.13), MD M=3.44/6 (SD = 0.96). There is a significant connection between shame and knowledge (r = -.30, p = .023), meaning more knowledge, less shame and vice versa. 83% of MD, 90% of IBD Nurses would like (more) information material, most frequently print media (71% of MD) or guideline (83% of Nurses) to pass on to patients or self-training. Conclusion The quality of sexual life does not necessarily appear to be affected in our cohort. Sexuality beyond pregnancy and the desire to have children does not appear to be a major issue for IBD patients, 52% do not want to talk about it, even when the topic comes up during their consultations. There was no correlation between the desire to talk about sexuality based on gender, age, different age groups, or CD or UC. Further research with focus on individual aspects is necessary in order to be able to provide good advice to patients who want information. References none

SummaryBackgroundIBDBIO‐ASSIST was a randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy of care provided by IBD nurse specialists in Germany in improving health‐related quality of life (QoL) in IBD patients on biologic therapy.AimTo evaluate patient‐related outcomes and economic consequences associated with integrating IBD nurses into usual care.MethodsWe randomly assigned 1086 patients with IBD on biologic therapy to a control group (CG) receiving usual care or an intervention group (IG) receiving additional care from an IBD nurse specialist. The primary outcome was disease‐specific QoL (sIBDQ) assessed at 6, 12 and 18 months.ResultsAt baseline, patients in both groups were highly satisfied with their treatment situation and had relatively high sIBDQ values (range: 1–7; CG: 5.12; IG: 4.92). In the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis of the overall sample, there was no significant difference in sIBDQ between groups at the assessment time points. However, a per‐protocol analysis of patients with impaired QoL at baseline (EQ‐VAS < 75 [median]), showed improvement in sIBDQ over 6 months that became significant at month 12 and remained significant through month 18 (baseline: IG 4.24; CG 4.31; 18 months: IG 5.02; CG 4.76; p = 0.017).ConclusionHigh baseline satisfaction of IBD patients with treatment and the relatively high baseline sIBDQ values may have contributed to the lack of significant difference in sIBDQ scores for the overall sample. However, patients with impaired QoL derived significant benefit from additional care provided by an IBD nurse specialist, leading to meaningful improvements in sIBDQ over the long term.

Abstract Background Observational real-world evidence (RWE) studies on the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in ulcerative colitis (UC) are required in addition to RCTs, which are usually confined to selected patients and thus may not represent distinct treatment patterns and everyday clinical practice. For this reason, the prospective, controlled, propensity score (PS)-adjusted RUN-UC study was conducted in UC patients starting a newly initiated biologics therapy with a follow-up period of 3 years. The aim of the present analysis was to investigate the induction phase effectiveness of UST vs anti-TNF vs vedolizumab (VEDO) in UC in terms of clinical and steroid-free remission. Methods Between 2020-2022, 507 UC patients starting a new therapy with UST or other biologics were enrolled in 34 IBD-experienced centres across Germany. After exclusion of small molecules and missing outcomes, the final sample consisted of 317 patients. Response modified (reduction of partial Mayo score (pMayo) by ≥ 3 points from baseline to week-16 and a reduction of at least 30% or reaching remission at week-16), clinical remission (pMayo ≤ 1 plus a bleeding subscore=0), and steroid-free remission (pMayo ≤ 1, bleeding subscore=0 and no systemic use of steroids or oral budesonide during the last 8 weeks) were considered as outcomes. To reduce the effect of confounders, PS adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used, and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the self-reported visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) of the EQ-5D. Changes in EQ-VAS from baseline to week-16 were assessed with a linear model. Results 101 UST (bio-naïve: 6), 106 anti-TNF (ADA: 24.5%, IFX: 65.1%, GOL: 10.4%) (bio-naïve: 70) and 110 VEDO (bio-naïve: 73) UC-patients were included. PS adjustment removed systematic differences between the three groups (UST/anti-TNF/VEDO: 44.9/43.8/48.1% males, 6.7/9.9/5.5% smokers, 7.9/12.5/9.3% EIM). The effectiveness of UST in terms of response, clinical and steroid-free remission was comparable to that of anti-TNF and VEDO at week 16 (Tab. 1). We observed a significant increase in EQ-VAS within all three groups (Tab. 2). The increase in the UST group was significantly higher than in the VEDO group and numerically higher than in the anti-TNF group. Conclusion In this prospective RUN-UC study, with propensity score weighted groups, UST showed similar induction phase effectiveness in comparison with anti-TNF and VEDO. Quality of life was significantly improved in the UST group vs VEDO and was numerically higher than anti-TNF after the induction phase.

Abstract Background Observational real-world evidence (RWE) studies on the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) in ulcerative colitis (UC) are needed in addition to RCTs, which may not represent everyday clinical practice. For this reason, the prospective, controlled, propensity score (PS)-adjusted RUN-UC study was conducted on UC patients starting a new biologic therapy with a follow-up period of up to 3 years. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the 1-year maintenance therapy effectiveness of UST vs. anti-TNF or vedolizumab (VDZ). Methods Between 2020-2022, 507 UC patients starting a new therapy with UST or other biologics were enrolled in 34 IBD-experienced centres in Germany. After the exclusion of patients with a stoma, small molecules and missing outcomes, the final sample consisted of 476 patients. Response modified (reduction in partial Mayo score (pMayo) by ≥3 points from baseline to month 12 and a reduction of at least 30% or achievement of remission at month 12), clinical remission (CR) (pMayo ≤ 1 plus a bleeding subscore=0) and steroid-free remission (pMayo ≤ 1, bleeding subscore=0 and no systemic use of steroids or oral budesonide use in the previous 8 weeks) were considered as outcomes. To reduce the effect of confounders, PS adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. Health-related QoL was assessed by using the visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) of the EQ-5D. Results A total of 476 UC-patients [147 UST (bio-naïve: 12), 168 anti-TNF (ADA: 32.7%, IFX: 59.5%, GOL: 7.7%) (bio-naïve: 114) and 161 VDZ (bio-naïve: 105)] were included in the analysis. The PS-adjustment eliminated systemic differences in the baseline parameters (UST/anti-TNF/VEDO: 42.2/47.0/50.3% males, 25.2/25.0/19.9% EIMs), in particular, the "bio-experienced" characteristic was also equalised, between the groups. Treatment persistence over 12 months was different between UST (93.9%), VDZ (87.0%) and anti-TNF (75.0%) (Fig. 1). The PS-weighted effectiveness of UST (mITT analysis) in terms of response, clinical and steroid-free remission at month 12 (Tab. 1) was comparable to that of anti-TNF and VDZ, as was also the case without PS-weighting (CR: UST 33.1%, anti-TNF 38.5%, VDZ 38.1%). Patients of all treatment groups showed significant improvements in QoL measured as the EQ-VAS after 12 months of treatment. Conclusion In this prospective RUN-UC study with PS-weighted groups, UST showed similar maintenance effectiveness compared to established biologics in UC (anti-TNF and VDZ) with a relatively higher treatment persistence of UST, probably serving as a proxy for effectiveness, suggesting that additional criteria, such as safety and patients´ profile, may play an important role in the selection of biologics.

Abstract Background Within the framework of the prospective real-world RUN-CD registry on the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in Crohn’s disease (CD), a total of 901 CD-patients undergoing a newly initiated biologics therapy were enrolled in 44 IBD-experienced centers from all over Germany between 2017-2020 with a follow-up of 3 years. Here, the results on the effectiveness of the maintenance therapy over 24 months are presented as a real-world evidence (RWE) comparison of CD-patients with UST vs anti-TNF. Methods After exclusion of other biologics than UST and anti-TNF and missing outcomes (HBI), the final sample consisted of 550 CD patients. Clinical remission (HBI ≤ 4) was the predefined endpoint at month 24 and additionally, switching of biologics therapy was considered as an outcome failure. Patients were analysed on a modified intent-to-treat basis (mITT; switchers considered as outcome failure). To reduce the effect of confounders, propensity score (PS) adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used, and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality of life was assessed using the self-reported visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) of the EQ-5D with changes from baseline to 2 years. Results 308 UST (naïve: 27) and 242 anti-TNF (naïve: 162) CD-patients were included (ADA: 61.2%, IFX: 38.8%). The number of switches within 24 months was significantly lower with UST than with anti-TNF (27.6% vs 37.1%; p=0.038), and especially with IFX, whereby the difference between UST and IFX (27.6% vs 46.7%; p=0.003) proves to be statistically significant (Fig. 1). Clinical remission at two years was not statistically different for the overall UST vs anti-TNF groups (51.2% vs 54.4) (numerically higher in biologic-naïve UST- vs anti-TNF-patients, without statistically significance) (Tab. 1). Remission rates were similar for UST vs ADA, while they were significantly higher for UST vs IFX (54.4% vs 37.9%; p=0.008) (Tab. 2), and also significantly higher for ADA vs. IFX (58.2% vs 37.9%; p=0.003). As a sign of an improved QoL we observed a significant increase in EQ-VAS within both treatment groups. However, a similar increase in EQ-VAS was observed with UST and anti-TNF (+14.2 vs +12.3; p=0.147). Conclusion In this prospective two-year RWE comparison clinical remission was, also due to more frequent switches within the IFX group, significantly higher with UST when compared with IFX and higher with ADA than with IFX. Considering the effectiveness results of UST and the proven favourable safety profile, UST can be considered a first-line targeted therapy for CD.

Abstract Background To gain insight into vedolizumab (VEDO) use as a first-line biologic in Crohn′s disease (CD), this comparative, two-arm prospective real-world-evidence (RWE) study with propensity score (PS) adjustment aimed to assess, within the maintenance phase, the 2-year comparative effectiveness and persistence of VEDO vs anti-TNF therapy in biologic-naïve CD patients. Methods Between 2017-2020, 1200 consecutively enrolled biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and CD were prospectively included in the VEDOIBD study from 45 IBD-experienced centres across Germany. 260 biologic-naïve CD patients starting a new therapy with VEDO or anti-TNF were included in this RWE comparison of VEDO vs anti-TNF. The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to summarize the treatment persistence from the start of therapy through week-104. The primary outcome was two-year clinical remission (HBI ≤ 4). Patients were analysed on a modified intent-to-treat basis (mITT; switchers considered as outcome failure). To reduce the effect of confounders, PS adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used to evaluate the effectiveness. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results 63 VEDO and 197 anti-TNF (ADA: 58.4%, IFX: 41.6%) biologic-naïve CD-patients were evaluated. Two years after treatment initiation approximately 83% of VEDO patients were still in continuous treatment vs only 56% of anti-TNF patients (Fig. 1). In the mITT analysis (Fig. 2), there was a significantly higher clinical remission rate with VEDO when compared to anti-TNF after two years (VEDO: 64.2% vs anti-TNF: 44.7%), and a higher steroid-free remission (VEDO: 62.5% vs anti-TNF: 41.6%). Both differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). Additionally (Fig. 3), using IPTW to examine the two-year maintenance effectiveness in week-14 induction phase responders, there was a significantly better response in terms of clinical remission for VEDO (88.6%) compared to anti-TNF (45.8%) (p=0.0001) and in steroid-free remission of 86.8% for VEDO compared to 44.1% for anti-TNF (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to previous RCTs, this prospective two-year RWE study comparing VEDO with anti-TNF showed that, in biologic-naïve CD patients, remission rates at two years with VEDO were remarkably higher than with anti-TNF. Given the favourable side effect profile of VEDO, these findings may aid physicians’ decision-making on the choice of VEDO as a first-line biologic for CD.

Abstract Background In this two-arm prospective real-world-evidence (RWE) study with propensity score adjustment, we aimed to analyse the persistence of biologic therapy in biologic-naïve ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and to compare the 2-year effectiveness of vedolizumab (VEDO) and anti-TNF. Methods Between 2017 and 2020, 1200 consecutively enrolled biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with UC and CD (Crohn’s disease) were prospectively included in the VEDOIBD study from 45 IBD-experienced centres across Germany. After the exclusion of biologic-experienced patients, CD, and missing outcomes, the final sample consisted of 314 biologic-naïve UC patients with 2-year follow-up data. In this mITT analysis switching was considered as outcome failure, and clinical remission and (steroid-free) remission rates (pMayo ≤1 plus a bleeding subscore=0 - and no systemic use of steroids or oral budesonide at two years) at two years were predefined as outcomes. To reduce the effect of confounders, propensity score (PS) adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used, and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The two-year maintenance phase effectiveness of 182 VEDO and 132 anti-TNF (ADA: 25.8%; IFX: 58.3%; GOL 15.9%) biologic-naïve UC patients were analysed in this prospective RWE-comparison of VEDO vs anti-TNF. Significantly more patients switched to another biologic in the anti-TNF group when compared to the VEDO group up to 2 years (54% vs 29%; p<0.0001) (Fig. 1). In the mITT analysis after 2 years a statistically significant higher clinical remission rate of 43.2% was found for VEDO vs 25.8% for anti-TNF (OR 95% 2.18 (1.19-3.99), p=0.011) (Fig. 2). Considering the two-year effectiveness of ADA and IFX the response rates of VEDO were numerically higher than those of ADA (45.2% vs 37.9%) but not statistically significant. In contrast, for VEDO versus IFX, there was a clear difference in favour of VEDO that resulted in a clinical remission rate of 43.1% versus 16.5% for IFX (p=0.0003). Conclusion As shown previously, in the induction phase, there is comparable effectiveness for VEDO and anti-TNF, although the remission rates are relatively low and similar to the range reported in RCTs. Over one year, the effectiveness tends to improve in favour of VEDO, potentially due to better treatment persistence. After two years, the clinical remission rate in the VEDO group is statistically significantly higher than in the anti-TNF group. The higher treatment persistence of VEDO vs anti-TNF and the higher effectiveness may suggest VEDO as a first-line biologics therapy option in UC patients.

Abstract Background Since April 2020, vedolizumab (VEDO) has been available for use in IBD in intravenous (iv) and subcutaneous (sc) formulations. Due to limited data on real-world use and effectiveness, the objectives of this real-world evidence (RWE), observational, prospective study are to observe (1) the time point of conversion to VEDO sc, (2) the 6-month remission rate with VEDO sc. using data from the VEDOIBD study. Methods Between 2017-2020, 1200 consecutively enrolled patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) were prospectively included in the VEDOIBD study from 45 IBD-experienced centers across Germany. Additionally, 74 VEDO-naïve patients were included with the goal of conversion to VEDO sc after an iv-induction period with VEDO (VEDO iv week 0, 2, 6). Effectiveness was measured by clinical remission (HBI ≤ 4) at month 6. Results A total of 180 IBD patients with a running VEDO iv therapy were converted to VEDO sc during the entire study, with at least one 6-month visit from 119 patients (UC: n=67; CD: n=52). Characteristics are shown in Table 1. 87 IBD patients (73.1%) were still receiving VEDO sc after 6 months. 32 IBD patients (26.9%) stopped VEDO sc therapy within the first 6 months. The majority of patients returned to treatment with VEDO iv (37.9%) and the others switched to other biologics: 24.1% ustekinumab, 34.5% anti-TNF (Figure 1). At the time of conversion to sc, 92 patients (77.3%) were in remission (UC: 75%; CD: 84.6%). Of those, 88% remained in remission at 6 months (UC: 89.6%; CD: 86.4%). 45.8% of patients not in remission at the time of conversion to VEDO sc were in remission at 6 months (UC: 50%; CD: 37.5%). Of the 74 patients with planned conversion to VEDO sc, 52 patients (70.3%) received VEDO sc as planned previously: 11.5% within the first 2 weeks, 42.3% after week 6, 19.2% after week 14, and 26.8% after six months or later. Conclusion IBD patients with a conversion from VEDO iv to VEDO sc show high effectiveness after 6 months; conversion usually was carried out between 6 and 14 weeks. Based on these data, VEDO sc is shown to be an effective alternative to VEDO iv in RWE and should therefore be considered an important option in treatment planning and discussion with patients.

Abstract Background Observational real world studies are required in addition to RCTs which typically represent selected patients not reflecting everyday clinical practice. Between 2017–2020 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) receiving a newly initiated biologics therapy were consecutively enrolled into the prospective, observational RUN-CD registry from 44 IBD-experienced German centres to assess effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) with a 3 years follow-up. Here, the results on the effectiveness of the maintenance therapy over 12 months are presented as a real world evidence (RWE) comparison of UST vs anti-TNF. Methods After exclusion of other biologics than UST and anti-TNF and missing outcomes, the final sample consisted of 607 CD-patients. Clinical remission (HBI ≤ 4) was the predefined endpoint at month 12. Patients were analyzed on a modified intent-to-treat basis (mITT; switchers considered as outcome failure). To reduce the effect of confounders, propensity score (PS) adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used, and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results 343 UST (naïve: 35) and 264 anti-TNF (naïve: 175) (ADA 61%, IFX 39%) CD-patients were included. PS removed systematic differences between both groups (mean of both groups: 15% perianal disease, 36% surgical resection, 41% EIM). Overall, the number of switches was lower in the UST group than in the anti-TNF group (Tab. 1). However, the number of switches within 12 months was significantly lower in the UST group only when compared to the IFX group (16.3% vs 27.2%; p=0.045) (Fig. 1). Clinical remission rates at 1 year (Tab. 2) were not statistically different for the overall UST vs. anti-TNF groups (65.8% vs 60.0%). Remission rates were similar for UST vs ADA, while these were significantly higher for UST vs. IFX (61.6% vs 41.8%; p=0.009). Looking at clinical remission in the week 16 responder group (Tab. 3), a statistically significantly higher remission rate was found in the overall group for UST (77.6%) vs anti-TNF (65.4%) (p=0.041), which was mainly driven by the higher UST remission rate in biologic-naïve CD patients (p=0.026). Conclusion This 1-year maintenance phase RWE-comparison with UST vs anti-TNF showed remarkably high clinical remission rates in both groups. Also due to a more frequent switching within the IFX group, the clinical remission rate at 1 year was significantly higher with UST than with IFX and higher with UST vs anti-TNF in the biologic-naïve groups. These results support together with the known favorable safety profile consideration of UST as a first-line targeted therapy for CD.

Abstract Background In this real-world-evidence (RWE) study we aimed to analyse the persistence of biologic therapy in biologic-naïve ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and to compare 1-year effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and anti-TNF. Methods Between 2017 and 2020, 1200 consecutively enrolled biologic-naïve and biologic- experienced patients with UC and Crohn′s disease (CD) were prospectively included in the VEDOIBD-Registry from 45 IBD-experienced centres across Germany. After exclusion of bio-experienced patients, CD and missing outcomes, the final sample consisted of 274 biologic-naïve UC-patients with 1-year follow-up data. Switchers of a drug were considered as treatment failure (modified intention-to-treat analysis; mITT) while switchers were excluded from per protocol analysis (PP). Clinical response modified (reduction of partial Mayo score (pMayo) from baseline to 1-year by >3 points or a reduction of at least 30% compared to baseline or reaching remission at 1-year) and (steroid-free) remission rates (pMayo ≤1 plus a bleeding subscore=0 (and no systemic use of steroids or budesonide at 1-year)) were predefined as outcomes. To reduce the effect of confounders, PS adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used, and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results 158 VDZ and 116 anti-TNF (ADA: 27.6%, IFX: 57.8%, GOL: 14.7%) biologic-naïve UC-patients were included in this prospective RWE comparing the effectiveness of VDZ vs anti-TNF. Until week 52 significantly more patients switched to another biologic-drug in the anti-TNF group than in the VDZ group (40.5% vs 16.5%; p<0.001) (Fig. 1). In mITT, clinical response at 1-year was significantly higher in VDZ than in anti-TNF treated patients (61.7% vs. 40.3%; OR 2.39 (95% CI 1.39–4.10)). VDZ also tended to be superior to anti-TNF for (steroid-free) remission (Tab. 1; p=0.058 (p=0.051)). In the PP-analysis, VDZ showed numerically higher 1-year effectiveness, but this did not reach statistical significance (Tab. 1). Analysing week-14 induction phase responders (Tab. 2), VDZ had numerically higher effectiveness rates compared to anti-TNF but without significant difference. Conclusion The 1-year maintenance findings suggested, in line with our previous induction phase data, only moderate long-term effectiveness in both groups. However, besides the significant response data, VDZ showed numerically higher remission rates compared to anti-TNF though only borderline significant. The higher treatment persistence of VDZ vs anti-TNF, along with the higher effectiveness, may suggest VDZ as a first-line biologic therapy option in UC patients.

Abstract Background To gain insight into vedolizumab (VDZ) use as a first-line biologic in Crohn′s Disease (CD), this real-world study aimed to assess, within the maintenance phase, the 1-year comparative effectiveness and persistence of VDZ vs anti-TNF therapy in biologic-naïve CD-patients. Methods Between 2017–2020, 1200 consecutively enrolled biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and CD were prospectively included in the VEDOIBD-Registry from 45 IBD-experienced centres across Germany. 294 biologic-naïve CD-patients starting a new therapy with VDZ or anti-TNF (adalimumab: ADA or infliximab: IFX) were included in this real-world evidence (RWE) study. The Kaplan-Meier was used to summarize the treatment persistence from the start of therapy through week-52. The primary outcome was week-52 clinical remission (HBI ≤ 4). Patients were analyzed on a modified intent-to-treat basis (mITT; switchers considered as outcome failure) and on a per-protocol (PP) basis (excluding switchers). To reduce selection bias in the estimation of treatment effects, the inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score (PS) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used to evaluate the effectiveness. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results 71 VDZ and 223 anti-TNF (ADA: 59.6%, IFX: 40.4%) biologic-naïve CD-patients were evaluated. 52-weeks after treatment initiation approximately 94% of VDZ patients were still in continuous treatment vs 75% of ADA and 78% of IFX (Figure 1). The mITT 1-year clinical remission rate was 76.1% for VDZ vs 63.8% for anti-TNF (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.86–3.76). Similar results were observed for VDZ vs IFX (Table 1). In contrast, the clinical remission was significantly higher in the VDZ group than in the ADA group (OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.04–4.85). The PP analysis suggested comparative effectiveness, having excluded more anti-TNF switchers. 91.7% of week-14 responders VDZ patients were in clinical remission from week 14 through 52 vs 66.1% of anti-TNF patients (OR: 5.69, 95% CI: 1.66–19.5). Similar, significant, results were observed for VDZ vs ADA and for VDZ vs IFX (Table 2). Conclusion In this real-world setting comparing VDZ and anti-TNF in biologic-naïve patients via PS weighted analysis, VDZ showed especially in week-14 responders higher clinical remission rates in comparison to anti-TNF. The higher treatment persistence observed for VDZ, perhaps due to a more favourable safety profile vs anti-TNF, may be considered the main driver for the better effectiveness of VDZ at one year. These findings may aid physicians’ decision-making on the choice of VDZ as the first-line biologic for CD.

IBD-care may be challenging and benefits from a multidisciplinary, cross-sectoral treatment approach and active patient involvement. However, occasionally there is a lack of patients′ empowerment and additionally, a necessity for the optimisation of physicians′ treatment is apparent. Furthermore, there is a deficiency in evidence regarding the effectiveness of structured care approaches (“managed care”) on patient-related outcomes (PROs). Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the potential of managed care programmes for IBD patients. EASEIBD is a cross-border study conducted by IBD-DACH, an IBD working group in Germany (D), Austria (A) and Switzerland (Ch). Within the DACH-region, a cross-sectional survey of patients and physicians from IBD hospital-outpatient departments and gastroenterology practices was carried out. The questionnaire evaluated the effect of instruments and contextual factors of IBD-care with regard to quality of life (QoL). Additionally, the effects of “managed care” instruments were examined while considering centre-related structural characteristics. The analysis was performed using a multivariate multilevel regression model, controlled by various physician and patient characteristics. 2536 IBD-patients from 66 centres (643 IBD-patients/quarter; 31% hospital out-patient departments) were consecutively enrolled in EASEIBD (centres/IBD-pat.: D-52/1735; A-10/647; Ch-4/154). Overall, patient satisfaction (77-84%) (Fig. 1) as well as perceived quality of care (82-87%) (Fig. 2) was high and comparable in the descriptive analysis between German, Austrian and Swiss IBD-patients. Statistically significant differences were only found in single characteristics, e.g. in quality of life (EQ5D-VAS) (p=0.004) (Fig. 3). However, these do not appear clinically relevant with regard to the absolute values. In the entire DACH-region there were detectable effects of elements representing structural quality and assessments of the centres, with regard to the perceived quality of patient care (Fig. 4), whereby, in particular, a positive influence of web-based instruments (e.g. homepage) (p=0.040) and potential use of homecare calprotectin (0.046) had the most pronounced effect. Noteworthy, in Germany, the implementation of specialised IBD nurses was associated with a beneficial impact on patients′ QoL (0.027) when compared to the cumulative results from the entire DACH region (p=0.681). Our study shows that the use of elements of managed care programmes resulted in a high process quality, which is evident from the reported high patient satisfaction and quality of care by IBD-patients in the entire DACH region, and qualifies this area as a suitable common study landscape.

Einleitung Prospektive Real-World-Studien zur Wirksamkeit von Vedolizumab (VEDO) bei Colitis ulcerosa (CU) sind zusätzlich zu Zulassungsstudien erforderlich, da sich diese auf selektierte Patientengruppen beschränken.

Abstract Background The VEDOibd I study is an investigator initiated, ongoing, non-interventional trial on biologics in IBD-patients (Crohn′s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)) in Germany with consecutive recruitment and prospective documentation of effectiveness in induction and maintenance therapy of biologics, especially vedolizumab (VEDO). The aim of this analysis was to compare steroid-free remission rates in CD- and UC-patients after a 14-week-long induction phase of VEDO (bio-naïve and bio-experienced) vs. other biologics (infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), Golimumab (GLM), Ustekinumab (UST)) in bio-naïve patients. Methods From 10/2017 to 07/2019 750 IBD-patients (CD: 414; UC: 336) from 45 gastroenterology practices and hospitals with IBD-experience from all over Germany were recruited in the VEDOibd I study of whom 232 CD- and 184 UC-patients completed induction phase (week 14) in this interim analysis. At week 14 we compared clinical response (CD: reduction of Harvey Bradshaw Index [HBI] from baseline to week 14 by >3 points or HBI < 4 in week 14; UC: reduction of partial Mayo score [pMayo] from baseline to week 14 by >3 points or a reduction of at least 30% compared with baseline) and steroid-free remission rates (CD: HBI < 4 and no systemic use of steroids or budesonide at week 14; UC: pMayo ≤1 plus a bleeding subscore = 0 and no systemic use of steroids or budesonide at week 14) in patients with VEDO vs. other biologics. Results Ninety-two CD- and 111 UC-patients started a first-time VEDO therapy; of these 40 CD- (43%) and 57 UC-patients (51%) were bio-naïve. Furthermore 140 CD-patients (IFX 48.6%; ADA 47.1%; UST 4.3%) and 73 UC-patients (IFX 58.9%; ADA 24.7%; GLM 16.4%) started treatment with another biologic than VEDO and all of these were bio-naïve. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both naïve groups (VEDO/other biologics; p > 0.05): males [%]: CD 38/41, UC 37/51; age [years]: CD 46 ± 15/42 ± 15, UC 43 ± 19/39 ± 15; disease duration [years]: CD 15 ± 11/9 ± 11, UC 9 ± 9/6 ± 7; extraintestinal manifestations [%]: CD 23/20, UC 7/15. Response/steroid-free remission rates after induction phase in biologic-naïve patients with VEDO and other biologics were 74.4%/57.5% vs. 78.4%/64.3% in CD (p>0.05) and 60.0%/21.1% vs. 56.0%/13.7% in UC (p>0.05), respectively. Conclusion In this real-world setting we could show that in CD the effectiveness of VEDO vs. other biologics was very similar in bio-naïve patients and that in UC patients, VEDO treatment tended to be numerically superior to other biologics with respect to response and steroid-free remission rates. Further follow-up data of this interim-analysis including the whole planned study population of 1.200 IBD-patients will be shown in the near future.

This guideline provides evidence-based key recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of ulcerative colitis and upgrades the 2011 version. The guideline was developed by an interdisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, surgeons, pathologists, nutrition experts, and patient support groups under the auspice of the German Society for Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases. The guideline used structural S3 consensus-based methodology and includes statements on clinical practice, prevention, infectiological problems, surgery and nutrition.

RUN-CD study is an investigator initiated, ongoing, non-interventional trial on biologics in Crohn′s Disease (CD) patients in Germany with a prospective documentation of effectiveness in induction and maintenance therapy of biologics, especially of UST. Aim of this analysis was to compare steroid-free remission rates and QoL in CD-patients after a 16 week-long induction phase of UST vs. other biologic-therapies. From 04/2017- 09/2018 334 CD patients from 42 gastroenterology practices and hospitals with IBD-experience from all over Germany completed induction phase (Week 16) of the RUN-CD study. We compared steroid-free remission rates (i.e. HBI < 4 and no systemic use of steroids or budesonide during the last 8 weeks) in patients with UST vs. other biologics therapies. Anxiety/depression as marker of QoL was assessed by EQ-5D at baseline as well as at Week 16. T-test and χ2-test were used to compare the UST- and other biologic-group. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05 (two-sided). 174 CD-patients received a new UST therapy while 160 patients were newly treated with another biologic (Infliximab: 38.1%; Adalimumab: 46.0%; Vedolizumab: 15.9%). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both groups (UST/other biologics; p>0.05): males: 42%/48%, mean (SD) age [years]: 41 ± 14/43 ± 15, smokers: 31%/24%, mean (SD) disease duration [years]: 13 ± 10/11 ± 11, extraintestinal manifestations: 41%/39%, stenosis: 30%/33%. Perianal fistula was more frequent in patients with UST therapy (32% vs. 23%; p < 0.05 Steroid-free remission rates after induction phase in patients with UST and other biologic therapies were 45.4% vs. 49.4% (p > 0.05), respectively. Concomitantly, we found a significant reduction of patients who were anxious or depressed with 48.0% at baseline to 36.4% at Week 16 in the UST group and from 48.8% to 34.5% in the group of other biologics (reduction in both groups: p < 0.05; difference between groups: p > 0.05). In the UST group 21 patients were biologic-naïve and 54 were biologic-experienced with one previous biologic treatment; in the group with other biologics, these were 115 and 33 patients. Stratified to biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced with one previous biologic treatment, steroid-free remission rates were 47.6% (UST) vs.. 49.6% and 51.9% (UST) vs. 54.6% (p>0.05). In this real-world setting remission as assessed by symptom scores rates or QoL, respectively, were similar between patients receiving UST and other biologic therapies. Surprisingly the clinical effectiveness in biologics-naïve patients was not superior to biologics-experienced CD patients.

Das BioColitis-Register ist eine prospektive Studie in einem „Real-World-Setting“ bei Colitis ulcerosa (CU) Patienten entweder mit neu initiierter Biologika-Therapie oder einem frühen Krankheitsverlauf < 2 Jahren. Diese Subanalyse untersucht das Erreichen einer steroidfreien klinischen Remission nach 6 Monaten mit einer neu begonnenen Biologika-Therapie bei Biologika-naiven vs. Biologika-erfahrenen CU-Patienten.

scores, duration, site and concomitant medications were recorded. Pregnancy outcomes including mode of delivery, miscarriage, ante/postnatal complications, age at conception and need for escalation of IBD treatment during pregnancy were also assessed. Neonatal outcomes including low birth weight, pre-term delivery, NICU stays or perinatal infection and timing of vaccines were also recorded. Data were analysed using t testing, contingency and logistic regression analyses. Results: From an IBD population of over 2,500 patients, 31 individual females who underwent anti-TNF treatment during pregnancy from 2008 2013 were identified with a total of 36 pregnancies. Median disease duration at time of pregnancy was 12 years (IQR 3 17). 85% had Crohn’s Disease, 15% Ulcerative Colitis. Median Harvey Bradshaw Index pre-pregnancy was 4.5 (IQR 2 13). Median Mayo score was 1 (IQR 0 3). 57.3% received infliximab, 38% adalimumab, 4.7% certolizimab. 53.8% were on concomitant immunemodulators. The majority of patients stopped biologic treatment at the start of the third trimester. 67% had treatment reinstated in the postpartum period. Median age at conception was 30.5 (IQR 25 35). 19% had previous miscarriages. 92% had successful term pregnancies. 22% required escalation of treatment during pregnancy. 19.3% had a pregnancy complication including emergency section. 16% neonates had a low birth weight with 2 preterm deliveries and one case of NICU stay for meconium ileus. No perinatal infections were reported. 20% mothers breastfed. The majority of mothers delayed live vaccination of their children. Interestingly, there was a significant independent association between disease activity at time of conception and low birthweight (p < 0.01). There was no association between adverse outcomes or neonatal infections and anti-TNF use noted in this cohort. Conclusions: Disease control at time of conception and through pregnancy should be the main goal of treatment in this patient cohort and the use of TNF alpha antagonists to achieve this appears to warranted to improve pregnancy outcomes though definitive safety has yet to be proven.