DICA classification is a valid parameter to predict the risk of diverticulitis occurrence/recurrence in patients suffering from diverticular disease of the colon.

Background Infliximab and adalimumab are widely used for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Aim To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab in a large cohort of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis patients reflecting real-life clinical practice. Methods Seven hundred twelve patients were retrospectively reviewed, 410 with Crohn’s disease (268 treated with adalimumab and 142 with infliximab; median follow-up 60 months, range, 36–72) and 302 with ulcerative colitis (118 treated with adalimumab and 184 with infliximab; median follow-up 48 months, range, 36–84). Results In Crohn’s disease, clinical remission was maintained in 75.0% of adalimumab vs. in 72.5% of infliximab patients (P = 0.699); mucosal healing and steroid-free remission were maintained in 49.5% of adalimumab vs. 63.9% of infliximab patients (P = 0.077) and in 77.7% of adalimumab vs. 77.3% in infliximab group (P = 0.957), respectively. In ulcerative colitis, clinical remission was maintained in 50.0% of adalimumab vs. 65.8% of infliximab patients (P < 0.000); mucosal healing and steroid-free remission were maintained in 80.6% of adalimumab vs. 77.0% of infliximab patients (P = 0.494) and in 90.2% of adalimumab vs. 87.5% of infliximab patients (P = 0.662), respectively. At the multivariate analysis, ileocolonic location and simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease >10 were predictors of failure in Crohn’s disease; treatment with adalimumab, BMI ≥30 and Mayo score >10 were predictors of failure in ulcerative colitis. infliximab was more likely to cause adverse events than adalimumab (16.6 vs. 6.2%, P < 0.000). Conclusion Both adalimumab and infliximab are effective in long-term outpatients management of inflammatory bowel diseases. Adalimumab had a lower rate of adverse events.

ObjectiveTo investigate the predictive value of the Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) classification and to develop and validate a combined endoscopic-clinical score predicting clinical outcomes of diverticulosis, named Combined Overview on Diverticular Assessment (CODA).DesignA multicentre, prospective, international cohort study.Setting43 gastroenterology and endoscopy centres located in Europe and South America.Participants2215 patients (2198 completing the study) at the first diagnosis of diverticulosis/diverticular disease were enrolled. Patients were scored according to DICA classifications.InterventionsA 3-year follow-up was performed.Main outcome measuresTo predict the acute diverticulitis and the surgery according to DICA classification. Survival methods for censored observation were used to develop and validate a novel combined endoscopic-clinical score for predicting diverticulitis and surgery (CODA score).ResultsThe 3-year cumulative probability of diverticulitis and surgery was of 3.3% (95% CI 2.5% to 4.5%) in DICA 1, 11.6% (95% CI 9.2% to 14.5%) in DICA 2 and 22.0% (95% CI 17.2% to 28.0%) in DICA 3 (p<0.001), and 0.15% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.59%) in DICA 1, 3.0% (95% CI 1.9% to 4.7%) in DICA 2 and 11.0% (95% CI 7.5% to 16.0%) in DICA 3 (p<0.001), respectively. The 3-year cumulative probability of diverticulitis and surgery was ≤4%, and ≤0.7% in CODA A; <10% and <2.5% in CODA B; >10% and >2.5% in CODA C, respectively. The CODA score showed optimal discrimination capacity in predicting the risk of surgery in the development (c-statistic: 0.829; 95% CI 0.811 to 0.846) and validation cohort (c-statistic: 0.943; 95% CI 0.905 to 0.981).ConclusionsDICA classification has a significant role in predicting the risk of diverticulitis and surgery in patients with diverticulosis, which is significantly enhanced by the CODA score.Trial registration numberNCT02758860.

Background Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have entered the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), allowing for the treatment of a greater number of patients for their reduced cost than the originator. However, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the various ADA biosimilars remains scarce. We compare the efficacy and safety of ADA biosimilars SB5, APB501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in treating IBD outpatients in a real-life Italian setting. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive IBD outpatients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was measured using the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey-Bradshaw Index in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the following: (1) induction of remission in patients new to biologics and patients new to ADA but previously exposed to other anti–tumor necrosis factor agents or other biologics; (2) maintenance of remission in patients switched from the ADA originator to an ADA biosimilar; and (3) safety of various biosimilars. Results A total of 533 patients were enrolled according to the inclusion criteria: 162 patients with UC and 371 patients with CD. Clinical remission was obtained in 79.6% of patients new to biologics and 59.2% of patients new to ADA but not to other biologics; clinical remission was maintained in 81.0% of patients switched from the originator, and adverse events were recorded in 6.7% of patients. There was no significant difference between the 4 ADA biosimilars for each predetermined endpoint. Conclusions Adalimumab biosimilars are effective and safe in IBD treatment, both in new patients and in patients switched from the ADA originator. No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars.

Background and Aims: Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have been included into the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the different ADA biosimilars after replacing the ADA originator for a non-medical reason remains scarce. We aimed to compare in a real-life setting the efficacy and safety of four ADA biosimilars SB5, APB501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in IBD patients after replacing the originator for a non-medical reason. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on consecutive IBD patients, analyzing clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. The primary endpoints of the study were maintenance of clinical remission and safety of the different biosimilars. Results: 153 patients were enrolled, 26 with UC and 127 with CD. Clinical remission was maintained in 124 out of 153 (81%) patients after a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6–24) months, without any significant difference between the four ADA biosimilars. ADA biosimilars dosage was optimized in five patients (3.3%). Loss of remission was significantly higher in UC patients (10/26 patients, 38.5%) than in CD patients (19/127 patients, 14.9%, p<0.025). Adverse events occurred in 12 (7.9%) patients; the large majority were mild. Conclusions: No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars when used to replace the ADA originator for a non-medical reason. However, in UC patients the replacement of ADA originator for this reason should be carefully assessed.