Mortality Associated With Development of Squamous Cell Cancer in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Receiving Treatment With Thiopurines

Fluorescent Nanocomposite Materials with Synergistic Effects for Enhanced Fenelidone Delivery in Diabetic Nephropathy Treatment

In this study, we designed and synthesized a novel thio-purine analog, compound 1, which exhibits significant fluorescence properties due to its extended conjugated system, heteroatom incorporation (O, S, N), and rigid three-dimensional molecular framework, enabling its use as a fluorescence probe for real-time drug tracking and release monitoring. To enhance the solubility, biocompatibility, and therapeutic efficacy of compound 1, we synthesized a copper(II)-based coordination polymer (CP1) via hydrothermal methods, featuring a three-dimensional framework formed by 1,4-ttb and auxiliary ligand 4,4'-bpdc, as confirmed by comprehensive characterization techniques. Leveraging the synergistic therapeutic effects of compound 1 and fenelidone, we developed a composite drug delivery system, mPEG-PSU@CP1@1@fenelidone, which combines an amphiphilic mPEG-PSU shell with a CP1 core co-encapsulating both drugs. Notably, the fluorescence properties of compound 1 allow for real-time monitoring of drug release, as its fluorescence is quenched when encapsulated in CP1 and restored upon release. This system optimizes controlled drug release while enhancing the synergistic effects of compound 1 and fenelidone in reducing inflammation and renal fibrosis, as demonstrated in diabetic nephropathy (DN) model mice. Overall, the composite system integrates real-time fluorescence monitoring with improved therapeutic efficacy, offering a promising strategy for diabetic nephropathy treatment.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Hospitalizations Are Similar for Patients Receiving Televisit-Delivered Outpatient Care and Those Receiving Traditional In-Person Care

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic resulted in widespread expansion of telehealth. However, there are concerns that telehealth-delivered outpatient care may limit opportunities for managing complications and preventing hospitalizations for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the association between outpatient IBD care delivered through televisit (video or phone) and IBD-related hospitalizations.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study of patients with IBD who had an IBD-related index hospitalization between April 2021 and July 2022 and received their care in the Veterans Health Administration. We matched these hospitalized patients to controls who were not hospitalized based on age, sex, race, Charlson comorbidity index, IBD type, IBD-related emergency department use, IBD-related hospitalizations, and outpatient gastroenterology visits in the preceding year. The variable of interest was the percentage of total clinic visits delivered through televisit in the year before the index hospitalization. We compared the risk of IBD-related hospitalization by exposure to televisit-delivered care using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 534 patients with an IBD-related hospitalization and 534 matched controls without an IBD-related hospitalization during the study period. Patients with IBD with a higher percentage of televisit-delivered (vs in-person) outpatient care were less likely to be hospitalized during the study period (for every 10% increase in televisit use, odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.00; P = 0.03).

DISCUSSION

Televisit-delivered outpatient IBD care is not associated with higher risk of IBD-related hospitalization. These findings may reassure clinicians that televisit-delivered outpatient care is appropriate for patients with complex chronic diseases such as IBD.

Comparative Safety of Biologic Agents in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease With Active or Recent Malignancy: A Multi-Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Safety of biologic agents is a key consideration in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and active or recent cancer. We compared the safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists vs non-TNF biologics in patients with IBD with active or recent cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with IBD and either active cancer (cohort A) or recent prior cancer (within ≤5 years; cohort B) who were treated with TNFα antagonists or non-TNF biologics after their cancer diagnosis. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (cohort A) or recurrence-free survival (cohort B). Safety was compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity scores.

RESULTS

In cohort A, of 125 patients (483.8 person-years of follow-up evaluation) with active cancer (age, 54 ± 15 y, 75% solid-organ malignancy), 10 of 55 (incidence rate [IR] per 100 py, 4.4) and 9 of 40 (IR, 10.4) patients treated with TNFα antagonists and non-TNF biologics had cancer progression, respectively. There was no difference in the risk of progression-free survival between TNFα antagonists vs non-TNF biologics (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.25-2.30). In cohort B, of 170 patients (513 person-years of follow-up evaluation) with recent prior cancer (age, 53 ± 15 y, 84% solid-organ malignancy; duration of remission, 19 ± 19 mo), 8 of 78 (IR, 3.4) and 5 of 66 (IR 3.7) patients treated with TNFα antagonists and non-TNF biologics had cancer recurrence, respectively. The risk of recurrence-free survival was similar between both groups (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.24-3.77).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with IBD with active or recent cancer, TNFα antagonists and non-TNF biologics have comparable safety. The choice of biologic should be dictated by IBD disease severity in collaboration with an oncologist.

Therapeutic Management of Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Malignancies: A Clinical Challenge

Patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have increased risk of developing intestinal and extraintestinal cancers. However, once a diagnosis of malignancy is made, the therapeutic management of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) can be challenging as major guidelines suggest discontinuing the ongoing immunosuppressant and biological therapies for at least 2-5 years after the end of cancer treatment. Recently, new molecules such as vedolizumab and ustekinumab have been approved for IBD and limited data exist on the real risk of new or recurrent cancer in IBD patients with prior cancer, exposed to immunosuppressants and biologic agents. Thus, a multidisciplinary approach and case-by-case management is the preferred choice. The primary aim of our review was to summarize the current evidence about the safety of reintroducing an immunosuppressant or biologic agent in patients with a history of malignancy and to compare the different available therapies, including gut-selective agents. The secondary aim was to evaluate the clinical course of the IBD patients under cancer treatment who do not receive any specific immunosuppressant treatment after the diagnosis of cancer.

Repeated Occurrences of Basal Cell Cancer in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treated With Immunosuppressive Medications

INTRODUCTION

There are limited data on repeated basal cell cancer (BCC) occurrences among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially the impact of continuing immunosuppressive medications.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 54,919 patients with IBD followed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. We identified patients who had an incident BCC after their IBD diagnosis. We defined patients' exposure based on their IBD medications use as follows: (i) only aminosalicylate (5-ASA) use, (ii) only active thiopurine (TP) use, (iii) past TP use (discontinued >6 months ago) and no antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) use, (iv) anti-TNF use after previous TP use, (v) only anti-TNF use, and (vi) active anti-TNF and TP use. The outcome of interest was the repeated occurrence of BCC. Adjusted and unadjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate the risk of repeated BCC occurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 518 patients developed BCC after their IBD diagnosis. The numbers of repeated BCC occurrences per 100 person-years were 12.8 (5-ASA use only), 34.5 (active TP use), 19.3 (past TP use and no anti-TNF use), 25.4 (anti-TNF use after previous TP use), 17.8 (only anti-TNF use), and 22.4 (active anti-TNF and TP use). Compared with 5-ASA use alone, only active TP use was associated with an increased risk for repeated BCC occurrence (adjusted hazard ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.24-2.19; P = 0.0005). However, the increased risk was no longer present for other exposure categories.

DISCUSSION

Among IBD patients who developed an incident BCC while taking a TP and continued it, there was an increased risk of repeated BCC occurrences.

Efficacy and safety of methotrexate in the management of inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic role of methotrexate (MTX) for management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains unclear.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of MTX for induction and maintenance of remission in IBD until January 2020 in accordance with PROSPERO protocol (#CRD42018115047). Relative risk (RR) of maintenance of remission, induction of remission, endoscopic disease activity, and adverse events were combined in a meta-analysis.

FINDINGS

MTX monotherapy was not superior to placebo for induction of clinical remission in Crohn's disease (CD). However, MTX was superior to placebo in maintaining clinical remission of CD. Concomitant therapy with MTX and the TNF inhibitor infliximab (IFX) was not superior to IFX monotherapy in CD. In ulcerative colitis (UC), MTX monotherapy was not superior to placebo neither for induction of clinical remission, nor for maintenance of clinical remission. MTX did not result in superior endoscopic outcomes during induction or maintenance therapy compared with placebo. Regarding adverse events (AEs), our meta-analysis on CD studies showed a significantly higher risk of AEs when comparing MTX versus placebo in studies investigating induction of remission, but not in maintenance of remission. In UC, no such differences in AEs between MTX or placebo were observed.

INTERPRETATION

Current data support the efficacy of parenteral MTX monotherapy for maintenance of clinical remission in CD. MTX is not confirmed to be effective for treatment of UC or for induction of remission in CD. No evidence supports concomitant MTX to improve efficacy of IFX (no other biologics investigated).