Background Biosimilar infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) are well-proven cost-effective anti-TNF drugs in IBD; in our practice, the majority of patients with IBD receive IFX or ADA first line. Since the introduction of Vedolizumab (VED) and Ustekinumab (UST) some have recommended switching out of class after failing a single anti-TNF. This practice has significant cost implications. To establish the outcome of treatment response in patients treated with a second anti-TNF agent after anti-TNF failure compared with the outcome of patients treated with VED and UST after anti-TNF failure. Methods We maintain a prospective IBD database. We searched our database for the outcomes of patients who failed their first anti-TNF drug but were in a clinical remission 6 months after changing to a second or third biologic drug. Disease type, age, gender and response to their second and third biologic drug were recorded. Clinical remission was defined as off steroids with calprotectin <250 and no symptoms of active IBD. Results Two hundred and eighty-seven patients were identified. One hundred and forty (48.8%) were male. Mean age was 43.2 (range 18–94). Disease type was 75 (26%) UC, 210 (73.2%) CD, 2 (0.7%) IBD-U. One hundred and ninety-three patients received IFX 1st line, 118 (40%) failed. Of these 84 (72%) received ADA, 28 (24%) VED and 6 (5%) UST second line. Remission with second-line treatment was achieved in 58 (69%); ADA, 18 (64%); VED, 6 (100%); UST. Remission with third line treatment; was achieved in 6 (100%); VED; 5 (100%); UST. Ninety-four patients received ADA 1st line, 33 (35%) failed. Of these 11 (33%) received IFX, 10 (30%) VED and 8 (24%) UST second line. Remission with second-line treatment was achieved in 6 (55%); IFX, 10 (100%); VED and 8 (100%); UST. Remission with third line treatment; was achieved in 1 (100%); VED, 4 (100%); UST. Conclusion Our data suggest that treatment with ADA after IFX failure is an effective treatment option whereas IFX treatment after ADA failure is less effective. It is interesting that the majority of those who failed the anti-integrin treatment second line responded to third line ADA. These data are consistent with earlier anti-TNF studies including GAIN (Gauging Adalimumab efficacy in Infliximab Non-responders) and SWITCH (Switch to adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease controlled by maintenance infliximab: prospective randomised SWITCH trial) which demonstrated that anti-TNF failure is not a class effect. We recommend prescribing a second anti-TNF after anti-TNF failure in preference to using an anti-integrin second line. This practice will lead to significant cost savings for the health care economy.

Objective In this article we discuss the current evidence for these concerns and highlight where further work is required to understand the risk from these procedures and how it can be mitigated for. Background The COVID-19 (coronavirus-19 or SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has impacted on many aspects of patient care both for those with the virus and those with other illnesses. Of particular concern has been the risk to staff and patients from the spread of the virus in health care settings. This has led to changes in guidelines and practice in community and hospital settings that has implications on patient diagnostic pathways in lung cancer, with a specific emphasis on aerosol generating procedures (AGPs). Methods A literature search was carried out and 44 abstracts were initially found. Given the novel status of COVID-19, we included severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in our search. Five papers were selected for further analysis. An additional paper was highlighted during our research and therefore included in our review. Conclusions The papers selected assessed the risk of transmission during AGPs. The six articles selected assessed the risk of aerosol transmission during various AGPs (bronchoscopy, pleural procedures and pulmonary function tests) and each found that the risk of viral transmission via aerosol was low. As mentioned above, at the time the paper was written, there was a paucity of evidence regarding AGPs in the era of COVID-19. There is emerging evidence that our understanding of these procedures may be outdated and the risk of transmission maybe lower than previously anticipated. However, we need further reliable evidence to change practice going forward.