Afroditi Orfanidou

Background/Objectives: Ustekinumab has been approved for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Real-world data regarding its efficacy and the discovery of predictive factors of response need to be studied further. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and identify predictors of response to induction treatment with ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Clinical response (CR) at week 16 was the primary endpoint, and steroid-free clinical remission (SFCRem) and endoscopic response were the secondary endpoints. Baseline histology, mucosal gene expression, and pharmacokinetics were studied for their effect on response to treatment. Results: We included 123 patients (mean age = 50.3 years). CR was recorded in 70.8% (75/106), SFCRem in 48% (59/123), endoscopic improvement in 71.4% (40/56), and mucosal healing in 28.6% (16/56). Higher PRO-stool frequency (OR = 0.49, p = 0.027), concomitant use of 5-ASA (OR = 3.69, p = 0.021), platelet number of ≥284 × 10⁹/L (OR = 6.52, p = 0.001) at baseline, and a drop in the total count of platelets by 10⁸/L (OR = 1.23, p = 0.022) at week 8 were independently associated with CR. Elevated trough levels of ustekinumab at week 16 were associated with a higher probability of endoscopic improvement (median difference = 3784 ng/mL, p = 0.013), with an optimal cut-off value of 3500 ng/mL (AUC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66–0.96). Increased mucosal mRNA expression for IL-23 (p = 0.007) and IL-23R (p = 0.031) at baseline was associated with increased probability of CR. Higher continuous Geboes scores at baseline were associated with a lower probability of CR (OR = 0.80, p = 0.045), with an optimal cut-off value of 14 (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.93). Conclusions: Clinical, laboratory, and molecular markers may identify patients with ulcerative colitis who are more likely to respond to ustekinumab.

The advance in treatment against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with the development of nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) with high genetic barrier to resistance, including entecavir and tenofovir, has improved clinical outcomes of patients transplanted for HBV infection, by preventing HBV recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) effectively. Currently, after LT, the combination of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and a high‐barrier NA is considered as the standard of care for prophylaxis against HBV recurrence. However, because of the high cost of intravenous high‐dose HBIG, other routes of HBIG administration, such as intramuscular or subcutaneous, have come to the foreground. In addition, several transplant centres tend to use a NA as monoprophylaxis, following a short post‐LT period of HBIG and NA combination. Lately, studies using HBIG‐free prophylactic regimens with entecavir or tenofovir have shown promising outcomes in preventing HBV recurrence, mostly regarding patients with undetectable HBV DNA at the time of LT. Although vaccination against HBV has been an attractive prophylactic approach, its efficacy has been controversial. Moreover, further studies are needed regarding long‐term outcomes of complete withdrawal anti‐HBV prophylaxis. For patients transplanted for HBV/HDV co‐infection, combined regimen should be administered for a longer period post‐LT. Finally, the use of grafts from hepatitis B core antibody‐positive donors is safe for HBV‐negative recipients, with the administration of lifelong antiviral prophylaxis.