P571 Optimal biologic management of endoscopic postoperative recurrence following ileocecal resection in Crohn’s disease

Abstract

Abstract Background Endoscopic postoperative recurrence (POR) of Crohn’s Disease (CD) following ileocolonic resection (ICR) is common; however, optimal treatment strategies of identified POR are unknown. We assessed the role of biologic therapy to treat endoscopic POR in a real-world cohort. Methods Retrospective cohort study of adult CD patients who underwent ICR from 2009–2020 at a tertiary center. Patients with endoscopic POR detected on postoperative colonoscopy and a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy were included. Patients were categorized by biologic therapy at time of POR and further sub-grouped by therapy modification after POR detection (no change, therapy optimization, or change in biologic class). Therapy optimization included: starting or modifying immunomodulator therapy, corticosteroids, or budesonide. POR was defined by Rutgeerts’ ≥ i2b. Results 203 CD patients (49.8% female, 15.4% > 1 prior ICR, 49.0% pre-operative biologic exposure) were included. Of these, 137 (67%) patients were not on biologic therapy at POR detection: 43% subsequently started a biologic, 23% optimized therapy, and 34% had no change. 66 (33%) patients were on anti-TNF at POR identification: 24% subsequently changed biologic class, 48% optimized anti-TNF, and 27% had no change (Figure 1). There was no difference in median time from ICR to POR detection (483 days, p=0.08) or inter-colonoscopy interval (483 days, p=0.25) between groups. In patients not on biologics at POR detection, those who started a biologic saw a 21% increase in subsequent endoscopic remission compared to those who optimized therapy (49.2% vs 28.1%, p=0.09) and a 12% increase compared to those who received no change (49.2% vs 37%). In patients not on biologics with severe POR (i3/i4, n=62), there was significantly higher remission rate by starting biologic therapy compared to optimizing existing therapy (53.3% vs 16.7%) or no change (53.3% vs 35.7%), p=0.04. In individuals receiving anti-TNF at time of POR, there was a 25% increase in endoscopic remission in patients who switched biologic class compared to those who optimized therapy (56.2% vs 31.2%) and a 34% increase compared to those with no change (56.2% vs 22.2%), p=0.1. Furthermore, significantly higher rates of improved Rutgeerts’ score were observed in switching biologic class compared to therapy optimization (68.8% vs 43.8%) or no change (68.8% vs 27.8%), p=0.04. Conclusion After endoscopic POR detection following ICR, initiating biologic therapy in individuals not previously receiving it, and changing mechanism of action in those already receiving anti-TNF, may improve clinical outcomes compared to alternative management strategies. If confirmed, these findings may inform optimal management strategies for endoscopic POR.