HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 June ; 23(6): 882–893. doi:10.1097/MIB.0000000000001099.

Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the

Elderly Patient: Challenges and Opportunities
Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH1,*, Tamara Donaldson, PharmD2, Karen Lasch,
1
MD2, and Vijay Yajnik, MD, PhD
1
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
2
Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA
Author Manuscript

Abstract
The population of older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to grow, partly
reflecting the aging global population in general. The debilitating effects of IBD compound age-
related decrements in health and functional capacity, and make the medical management of older
patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis distinctly challenging to clinicians. Here, we
review the recent literature describing the pharmacologic management of IBD in this population,
with focus on the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of common treatment options, such as steroids,
immunomodulators, tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists, and integrin antagonists; surgical
interventions in older patients are also discussed. Few studies have systematically and
prospectively evaluated the clinical challenges in the medical management of IBD in this patient
Author Manuscript

population, leaving a limited evidence base to which clinicians can turn to for guidance.
Treatment patterns may thus be suboptimal. For example, prolonged steroid use in the elderly was
found to be common, causing significant morbidity from side effects in a particularly vulnerable
population. Finally, within the context of a limited evidence base, we discuss common treatment
scenarios to define the parameters within which physicians can individualize care for older
patients with IBD. Overall, older IBD patients are at higher risk of adverse events and less
treatment responsiveness compared with younger patients, underscoring the need for future
studies to fully characterize appropriate treatment courses for this population.

Keywords
inflammatory bowel disease; Crohn’s disease; ulcerative colitis; aging; elderly; review
Author Manuscript

INTRODUCTION
Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), collectively termed inflammatory bowel
diseases (IBD), are chronic diseases of the intestine with protracted courses of relapse and

*
Corresponding Author: Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, Department of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital,
Harvard Medical School, 165 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, Phone: 617-726-0267, Fax: 617-726-
3080, AANANTHAKRISHNAN@mgh.harvard.edu.
Conflicts of Interest
Ashwin Ananthakrishnan has no conflict of interest to disclose.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 2

remission that often result in progressive bowel damage, hospitalization, and surgery.(1)
Author Manuscript

The age of onset is typically 20 to 40 years, with some studies reporting a second rise in
incidence rates in those aged 60 to 70 years.(2) An estimated 10% to 30% of patients with
IBD worldwide are aged >60 years (Figure 1A,B).(3, 4) The incidence of IBD in this age
cohort was estimated to be between 4 and 8 per 100,000 patients per year, accounting for up
to 20% of all new IBD diagnoses.(3) As the global population ages (Figure 1C), the
prevalence of IBD among the elderly is also expected to increase.(2)

The diagnosis and management of IBD in elderly patients pose unique challenges. The
differential diagnosis of IBD in elderly patients is complicated by comorbid conditions such
as infectious colitis, segmental colitis associated with diverticular disease, nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drug-induced intestinal injury, and ischemia, each of which can mimic the
intestinal inflammation characteristic of IBD.(5) Consequently, as many as 60% of older
CD patients may be initially misdiagnosed, a fourfold increase relative to younger
Author Manuscript

patients.(6) Similarly, the delay in diagnosis among elderly patients may be as long as 6
years, 3 times longer than the estimated delay in younger patients.

Between 10%–15% of patients are diagnosed with IBD after the age of 60 years.(7) Late-
onset IBD differs from early onset in many aspects, including location and phenotype of the
disease at diagnosis, symptoms at presentation, and natural disease progression.(7) It is
generally accepted that a less severe disease course occurs in late-onset UC patients despite
having more severe initial attacks than early-onset patients.(7, 8) A recent meta-analysis and
systematic review investigating clinical outcomes in older-onset IBD demonstrated that
rates of surgical interventions were higher in older-onset than younger-onset UC at years 1
and 5 after diagnosis but similar in older-onset CD compared with younger-onset disease.(9)
It is unclear whether higher rates of surgical interventions are driven by a less benign natural
Author Manuscript

disease course in older-onset disease, reluctance of physicians to employ

immunomodulators, aggressive treatment regimen in elderly patients or complications due
to comorbid conditions.

In the absence of a definite medical cure, the current standard of care for UC and CD is
long-term immunosuppressive therapy. However, age-related changes in immune function
and the gut microbiome may increase susceptibility to infections(10) making chronic
immunosuppressive therapy in the elderly population less than ideal. In a retrospective
case-control study, IBD patients aged >50 years had greater odds of opportunistic infections
relative to those aged <24 years (odds ratio [OR]: 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–
7.2; P = 0.05).(11) An age-related increase in cancer incidence further complicates the risk
of immunosuppression in individuals at high risk for or with a prior history of cancer.
Author Manuscript

Further, comorbid illness and decline in overall health tend to complicate therapeutic
planning and adjustments to IBD regimens. Physiological changes and physical limitation in
elderly patients can also impact treatment choices. For example, anal sphincter
incompetence and limited coordination skills may impact the patient’s ability to successfully
self-administer topical aminosalicylate or corticosteroid therapy. In addition, treatments that
require frequent laboratory monitoring or regular trips to infusion centers may be more
challenging for older patients due to logistical considerations.(12) Therefore, treatment goals
in older IBD patients may focus on immediate symptom relief and improvement of physical

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 3

functioning to maintain independence—very different from the goals of younger cohorts who
Author Manuscript

may prioritize prevention of long-term disease-related complications. These and other factors
should be carefully considered when making treatment choices for elderly patients.

Although recent literature has documented the efficacy and safety of IBD treatments in the
elderly,(13–18) there are substantial gaps in our understanding of the special needs and
challenges of this patient population. Most clinical trials have excluded or enrolled insufficient
numbers of elderly patients, significantly limiting insights into the safety and efficacy of IBD
therapy as a function of age.(3) We provide a review of the recent literature on IBD treatment
options in older patients to help characterize the strengths and limitations of available evidence
and the practical questions that arise for clinical decision-making. Where appropriate, we
discuss studies of therapies for other autoimmune diseases (eg, rheumatoid arthritis), for which
similar treatments and therapeutic algorithms are adopted.
Author Manuscript

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT IN ELDERLY IBD PATIENTS

5-Aminosalicylic Acid
Five-aminosalicylic acid drugs (eg, 5-ASA; mesalamine or mesalazine) are anti-
inflammatory agents that mediate multiple but not mutually exclusive inflammation-related
pathways including nuclear factor κB, cyclooxygenase/prostaglandin E2, and peroxisome
proliferator-activated receptor γ signaling.(19, 20) Current national and international
guidelines recommend 5-ASA for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with
mild to moderately active UC.(21, 22) Meta-analysis of studies published between 1981 and
2005 demonstrated that oral 5-ASA was superior to placebo for induction and maintenance
of UC remission.(23, 24) The use of 5-ASA for CD remains controversial: a meta-analysis
of 6 clinical studies including 910 patients with active CD found that the 5-ASA derivative,
Author Manuscript

sulfasalazine, tended to be superior to placebo at inducing remission, but there was no

benefit of mesalamine over placebo. Neither compound was effective at preventing relapse
in quiescent CD.(25) While most of the evidence base for 5-ASAs in IBD is for the general
population, comparable efficacy of 5-ASAs was reported for both young and elderly
patients. However, elimination of sulfasalazine was found to be considerably slower in the
elderly, with a decreased glomerular filtration rate and lower renal clearance than in
younger cohorts.(7)

The favorable safety profile and relatively benign side effects of 5-ASAs suggest that they
may be preferred by elderly patients over other treatment options.(26) A retrospective
observational study of elderly patients aged ≥65 years in a 20-hospital system in
Pennsylvania, United States (US), revealed that 5-ASA and its derivatives were the most
Author Manuscript

commonly used agents for maintenance therapy, taken by 173 of 393 (44%) patients.(27)
This proportion was even higher in a French population-based registry, with 75% of the
elderly IBD population exposed to ASAs.(28) Similarly, a retrospective cohort study of
patients who underwent surgery for IBD at a single academic center in Wisconsin, US,
stratified patients into 4 age groups and revealed that 5-ASA use was higher in the elderly
cohort (aged >64 years) compared with younger cohorts.(29) While the evidence supporting
the use of 5-ASA drugs for induction and maintenance of remission in UC is clear, several
obstacles to optimizing therapy, particularly in the elderly, have been identified. The

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 4

conventional dosing regimen for 5-ASA entails a multiple daily dosing schedule. For
Author Manuscript

example, target doses of controlled-release oral formulations of 5-ASA for maintenance

in UC range from 0.75 to 4.8 g/day; however, doses are available only in 250 to 500 mg
capsules, requiring patients to swallow up to 16 pills every day.(19) On the other hand,
topical formulations can be equally inconvenient, causing discomfort, particularly in the
elderly patient in whom anal sphincter incompetence may reduce retention of enema fluid.
(30) Much of the recent innovation in clinical use of 5-ASA in colitis has come from
studies of novel delivery mechanisms and simplified oral dosing schedules.

The literature regarding the renal impact of 5-ASA is divisive, and it is unknown whether
the risk of nephrotoxicity is related to age. A systematic review summarizing the current
knowledge about the potential relationship between 5-ASA treatment and nephrotoxicity
suggested that renal reactions may be idiosyncratic rather than dose-related. This conclusion
was based on the low overall incidence of reported renal disease during 5-ASA treatment
Author Manuscript

and the lack of clear relationship between 5-ASA dose and risk nephrotoxicity.(31)

Corticosteroids
Corticosteroids suppress multiple pro-inflammatory genes that are activated in chronic
inflammatory diseases such as IBD.(32) Reduced expression of these genes
downregulates lymphocyte transmigration into the gut and inhibits pro-inflammatory
cytokine secretion, thereby reducing inflammation.(32, 33) Many corticosteroid
formulations are available for use in IBD patients, including prednisone and budesonide,
with demonstrated clinical efficacy for induction of remission as monotherapy and in
combination with other IBD therapies.(34)

Side effects of short- and long-term use of corticosteroids can limit the utility of this therapy
Author Manuscript

in elderly patients with IBD. Short-term effects, such as insomnia, mood instability, and
delirium,(35) are most distressing for the elderly because they impair functional
independence. Long-term use can lead to serious safety issues, including an increased risk
of hyperglycemia, cataract formation, osteoporosis, and aseptic joint necrosis.(36, 37)

The overuse of corticosteroids among elderly IBD patients is of particular concern because their
risk of reduced renal and hepatic clearance leads to increased exposure and makes these patients
more susceptible to steroid toxicity.(38) Infections in particular are a significant risk among
elderly patients with IBD.(11, 15) In an analysis of 300 IBD patients across a range of ages,
corticosteroid use was associated with significantly increased odds for opportunistic infections
(OR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.8–6.2).(11) Specifically among 3552 patients with elderly-onset IBD, the
rate of serious infections was significantly higher in patients exposed to oral corticosteroids at
Author Manuscript

any time during the preceding 6-month period compared with unexposed patients (adjusted rate
ratio: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.8–2.9).(15) Steroid use also confers an increased risk of osteoporosis among
elderly IBD patients. In a study of adult IBD patients, multivariate analysis showed that
cumulative steroid dose and age (≥55 years) were significant, independent risk factors for low
bone mineral density in the femoral neck.(37) The prevalence of malabsorption and calcium and
vitamin D deficiency in the elderly emphasizes the importance of early and regular bone
densitometry assessments, and use of bisphosphonates should be considered along with vitamin
D and calcium supplementation.

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 5

(39) Other concerns with chronic steroid use are increased risks of hyperglycemia and
Author Manuscript

diabetes, both already common conditions in the elderly.(40, 41) In a case control study of
CD patients aged >50 years, the relative risk (RR) for developing hyperglycemia after
steroid therapy demonstrated a numerical but not statistically significant increase relative to
younger patients (RR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.54–4.32).(40) And, in a retrospective population-
based cohort study of patients aged >65 years, oral corticosteroid users were significantly
more likely to develop diabetes mellitus than the control group receiving a proton pump
inhibitor (adjusted RR: 2.31; 95% CI: 2.11–2.54).(41) A recent study of elderly CD patients
showed that those who received continued steroid therapy reported worsened anxiety,
sleep, and fatigue compared with patients who did not use corticosteroids.(42) Moreover,
elderly patients who received corticosteroid monotherapy versus tumor necrosis factor
(TNF)-α antagonist or immunomodulator regimens showed significantly more depressive
symptoms and anxiety.(42)
Author Manuscript

Current treatment guidelines for the general IBD population thus recommend tapering of
systemic steroids after clinical remission is achieved. With significant variability in
steroid tapering protocols,(22, 34, 43) tapering should be individualized and based on the
rate and completeness of treatment response, and duration of exposure to steroids.(43)

Steroid dependency, defined as the inability to discontinue or reduce dosage of systemic steroids
below 10 mg/day, is prevalent, affecting up to 40% of patients with moderately to severely active
IBD.(44) In these patients, early initiation of corticosteroid-sparing therapies, including
thiopurines, methotrexate, and biologics, is recommended to reduce steroid exposure and
represent a measure of high-quality IBD care in several guidelines.(44–47)

Despite these evidence-based guidelines, older IBD patients, in contrast to younger IBD
Author Manuscript

patients, are more often treated with maintenance corticosteroid therapy and are less
frequently initiated on such steroid-sparing strategies (Figure 2).(27) In a retrospective
observational study, Juneja et al followed 393 IBD patients aged ≥65 years and found that
corticosteroid use nearly doubled, from 36% between 1991 and 2000 to 64% between 2001
and 2010.(27) Further, elderly-onset patients (those diagnosed after the age of 65) were on
higher average prednisone doses than those diagnosed at age <65 years (8 mg/day and 2.2
mg/day, respectively; P < 0.005).(27) Corticosteroid use for >6 months was identified in
32% of IBD patients aged ≥65 years.(27) The extended use of corticosteroids in older
patient populations is further demonstrated by the inadequate implementation of steroid-
tapering protocols.(14, 22, 43) In a retrospective cohort study by Johnson et al, which
included a nationally representative population of IBD patients aged ≥65 years (N = 8502),
nearly 20% of those treated with a TNF-α antagonist received corticosteroids for >3 months
and 10% received a maintenance course lasting ≥6 months. Further, 43% of older patients
Author Manuscript

treated concomitantly with a TNF-α antagonist and corticosteroids had multiple steroid
courses spanning >3 months.(14) Despite the evidence-based data demonstrating high rates
of adverse outcomes with steroids, familiarity, ‘perceived safety’, and the perceived
concern about other immunomodulators or biologic agents contribute to the widespread use
of corticosteroids in the elderly.(27)

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 6

Altogether, findings from these studies confirm and extend the evidence for substantial
Author Manuscript

steroid-related toxicity in elderly patients with IBD. Budesonide, a newer corticosteroid, has
some advantages in safety relative to others. Evidence suggests that topical budesonide does
not accumulate in the body and compared with other corticosteroids, reaches more central
parts of the colon and shows less suppression of plasma cortisol, without diminished
efficacy.(48) A study comparing oral budesonide and prednisone showed similar efficacy
rates in active and extensive UC.(49) A Cochrane review of budesonide in CD suggested
that it may have lower short-term efficacy than other corticosteroids but fewer adverse
events. Because of its better tolerability profile compared with conventional corticosteroids,
budesonide may be a first-line steroid in elderly patients with disease extent and severity
amenable to its action. However, cost and insurance coverage in some regions including the
US may limit access, and in clinical practice, low-dose prednisone is the only alternative.
(27) The frequent use of prednisone and associated risks highlight the need to monitor
Author Manuscript

the duration of corticosteroid use and implement steroid-sparing strategies particularly in

the elderly population.

Immunomodulators
For elderly patients who are resistant to aminosalicylates or show corticosteroid
dependence (approximately 30% of the elderly population(40)), immunomodulator therapy
with thiopurines or methotrexate may be indicated to maintain IBD remission.(22, 43)
Thiopurines (eg, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine) are immunosuppressive by deactivating
pro-inflammatory T lymphocytes,(50) whereas methotrexate is a folate antagonist with
immunosuppressive properties and established efficacy in several inflammatory disorders
including CD.(51)

Guidelines recommend the use of immunomodulators primarily for their steroid-sparing

Author Manuscript

effects, rather than as monotherapy to induce remission.(22, 43) A review of nearly 40

randomized controlled trials in CD found that neither azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine nor
methotrexate improved the odds of achieving remission over placebo.(52) However, a
significant difference over placebo was observed for both azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine
and methotrexate for the maintenance of remission.(52) The use of methotrexate in UC has
not been well-established.(22, 43)

Despite data supporting their efficacy and the risk of corticosteroid therapy in the elderly,
immunomodulators are used less frequently in older patients. A retrospective observational
study of 393 patients aged ≥65 years in a 20-hospital system revealed that merely 6% of
patients received maintenance therapy with either 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine and
1% received methotrexate therapy, compared with 32% receiving maintenance prednisone
Author Manuscript

(Figure 2).(27)

Although recommended for their steroid-sparing properties, immunomodulators cause systemic

immunosuppression and are associated with significant safety issues of their own. A small
prospective single-center study of azathioprine in elderly IBD patients (n = 25) concluded that
azathioprine was efficacious but less well tolerated in the older population relative to other age
groups with IBD, with 48% of 25 patients aged ≥75 years intolerant within 3 months versus
36% of 353 patients overall.(53) The increased risk of opportunistic

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 7

infections with azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.7–5.5) use may be
Author

compounded with the overall increased risk in patients aged >50 years.(11)

Several studies have reported that immunomodulator therapy is associated with increased
risk of malignancy.(54–57) In a prospective observational cohort study of 19,486 IBD
Manuscri

patients, the multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of lymphoproliferative disorder (LPD)

pt

between thiopurine-treated and thiopurine-naive patients (N = 18,486) was 5.28 (P =

0.0007).(54) Thiopurine-treated patients aged >65 years had a yearly LPD incidence rate of
5.41 per 1000 patient-years (PY) compared with 2.58 in patients aged 50 to 65 years.
Markedly, there was an approximately 15-fold difference in yearly LPD incidence rate
between patients aged >65 years and those aged <50 years (5.41 and 0.37 per 1000 PY,
respectively). Older age and longer disease duration are independently associated with
increased risk of incident LPDs.(54) Older age (>65 years) was also predictive of lymphoma
Author

in a 10-year retrospective cohort study of UC patients from the Veterans Affairs health care
system (N = 36,891; HR: 2.6; P = 0.02).(55) The age-, sex-, and race-adjusted HR of
developing lymphoma while being treated with thiopurines was 4.2 (P < 0.0001) relative to
Manuscri

patients who had not been exposed to thiopurines. The incidence rate of nonmelanoma skin
cancer in a retrospective study spanning 11 years was also higher with thiopurine exposure,
pt

and highest among patients aged >65 years (12.2 per 1000 PY vs 4.8 per 1000 PY without
exposure).(57) Similarly, Peyrin-Biroulet et al found that patients aged >65 years were at the
highest risk of developing nonmelanoma skin cancer with thiopurine use (4.04 per 1000 PY
vs 0.84 per 1000 PY without thiopurine use vs 0.66 per 1000 PY with thiopurine use in
patients <50 years old).(56)

Biologics
Biologic therapies for IBD include TNF-α, integrin, and interleukin antagonists.(58) TNF-α
Author

is a pro-inflammatory cytokine with a key role in the signaling cascade that results in
pathologic, chronic intestinal inflammation.(59) Elevated levels of TNF-α have been
Manuscri

observed in some patients with UC and CD,(60) and TNF-α antagonists (ie, infliximab,(61,
62) adalimumab,(63, 64) certolizumab pegol,(65, 66) and golimumab(67, 68)) have
pt

demonstrated efficacy as induction and maintenance therapy for UC and/or CD.

The integrins are cell-surface proteins that mediate adhesion of circulating lymphocytes to
cell adhesion molecules on endothelia, permitting extravasation to inflamed tissues.(69)
Integrin antagonist therapies include the humanized monoclonal antibodies, natalizumab
(indicated for CD and multiple sclerosis)(70) and vedolizumab (indicated for UC(71) and
CD(72)). Natalizumab interacts with the α4 subunit of the α4β1 and α4β7 integrins, whereas
Author

vedolizumab selectively targets the α4β7 integrin. Binding to the α4β7 integrin prevents its
interaction with mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1) on
microvascular endothelia, inhibiting migration of inflammatory cells to the gastrointestinal
tract.(69) By also binding α4β1 integrin, natalizumab blocks its interaction with vascular cell
Manuscri

adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), thereby preventing migration of leukocytes across the

pt

blood-brain barrier into the central nervous system.(70) This latter property of natalizumab
may account for its efficacy in multiple sclerosis, whereas the absence of binding to α4β1
integrin allows vedolizumab a gut-selective mechanism of action.

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 8

Ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody to the p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-

Author Manuscript

23 previously used for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, was recently
approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active CD.(73) Due to the limited
information related to its use of treating CD in the elderly, ustekinumab will not be
discussed in this section.

TNF-α antagonists—Although TNF-α antagonists have been available for over a decade,
data for use in the elderly and comparisons between agents in this population are sparse.
Whether a cause or consequence of the limited evidence base, in practice, TNF-α
antagonists are used less frequently in older IBD patients relative to other
immunosuppressives (Figure 2).(27) Several studies have indicated that fewer than 4% of
IBD patients aged >65 years received TNF-α antagonist therapy compared with
approximately 11% of IBD patients in the general population (mean age: 50.8 years).(14, 27,
74) In one such study, Johnson et al reported that among 8502 Medicare beneficiaries (aged
Author Manuscript

65 to 104 years) initiating TNF-α antagonist therapy, 67% were ≤75 years, 33% were aged
>75 years, and just 4% were ≥85 years old; no patient >90 years of age received TNF-α
antagonist therapy.(14)

One possible reason for the low use of TNF-α antagonist treatment in the older population
may be the reduced efficacy reported by some studies. For instance, in an observational
retrospective study by Lobaton et al, clinical response rates at week 10 were 68% in 66
patients who initiated TNF-α antagonist treatment at age ≥65 and 80% in the younger cohort
(n = 112; P < 0.001); whereas differences were not significant after ≥6 months of therapy
(79% and 83%, respectively (P = 0.639)).(17) In contrast, other studies have reported similar
TNF-α antagonist efficacy in both older and younger patient populations. In a study of 95
IBD patients older than 65 years who were treated with infliximab or adalimumab between
Author Manuscript

2000 and 2009, 59% of UC patients and 65% of CD patients achieved clinical remission
whereas remission rates in a control group of 190 UC and CD patients aged ≤65 years were
57% and 59%, respectively.(75)

Among those who initiate therapy with a TNF-α antagonist, older patients are less likely to
remain on treatment long-term. In a single-center retrospective study, discontinuation rates
at 12 months were higher among patients aged >60 years than in the control population who
initiated therapy for IBD before the age of 60 (25% vs 7%).(76) The only significant
predictor of early treatment discontinuation among older patients was the use of
combination therapy: concomitant use of azathioprine was associated with a two-fold
increase in treatment cessation compared with TNF-α antagonist monotherapy,(76) a
reflection, perhaps, of the increased risk of infection with combination therapy in this
Author Manuscript

population.

Safety concerns with TNF-α antagonist therapy in the general IBD population may become
heightened when patients are elderly. In a single-center retrospective study, the risk for any
serious adverse event with TNF-α antagonist therapy was nearly fivefold higher when
patients were ≥65 years of age (n = 66; RR: 4.7; P < 0.001).(17) As with other
immunosuppressive therapies, TNF-α antagonist-specific safety issues among elderly IBD
patients include risk of infection, malignancy, and death. In a study of 3079 IBD patients

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 9

receiving TNF-α antagonist therapy, higher rates of severe infection (11%) and mortality (10%)
Author Manuscript

were observed in the 95 patients older than 65 years compared with younger patients (2.6% and
1%, respectively) or age-matched controls on nonbiologic therapy (0.5% and 2%,
respectively).(75) Toruner and colleagues reported that infliximab treatment significantly
increased the odds of opportunistic infection (OR: 4.4; 95% CI: 1.2–17.1) across a range of ages,
with a higher magnitude in the elderly.(11) In contrast, in a cohort study of Medicare
beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis aged ≥65 years, there was no increase in serious bacterial
infections among initiators of TNF-α antagonist therapy (RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6– 1.7) or disease-
modifying anti-rheumatic drugs versus methotrexate initiators.(77)

Several case reports,(78, 79) a small case series,(80) and analyses of administrative data (81,
82) have quantified the risk of lymphoma after TNF-α antagonist therapy in IBD patients.
Others have reported cases of hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma with combined TNF-α
antagonist and thiopurine exposure, although primarily in adolescent or young adult males.
Author Manuscript

(83) However, there does not appear to be an association between TNF-α antagonist use and
a risk for all cancers.(84, 85) Since many TNF-α antagonist users received concomitant
immunomodulator therapy or have a history of recent use of such therapies, the relative
contributions of each drug class to lymphoma or other malignancy risk have been difficult
to ascertain.

Integrin antagonists—Evidence for the safety and efficacy of integrin antagonists in

older patients is limited. Despite its efficacy, natalizumab use for CD has been limited
because of serious safety concerns. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML),
a rare and often fatal viral infection, has been reported in patients with CD and multiple
sclerosis treated with natalizumab.(86) There have been no reports of PML with
vedolizumab exposure to date, likely because of its gut-selective mechanism of action.
Author Manuscript

Prospective randomized trials of vedolizumab enrolled limited numbers of older IBD

patients. A descriptive retrospective analysis of pivotal studies in UC and CD
demonstrated that the safety profiles of vedolizumab and placebo were similar in patients
aged <35 years, 35 to 55 years, and ≥55 years.(18) Vedolizumab-treated UC and CD
patients in the oldest subgroup (n = 147) had fewest serious infections (<1%) and adverse
events leading to hospitalization (11%) compared with patients in younger subgroups.
Early experience in clinical practice (N = 66 IBD patients aged ≥18 years) has shown that
older age may correlate with a higher likelihood of vedolizumab response.(87) The mean
age of patients who responded to vedolizumab, defined as having abnormal C-reactive
protein or elevated physician global assessment score, were significantly older (42.5 vs
25.5 years; P = 0.01) at week 6 and at week 14 (43.6 vs 20.9 years; P = 0.02).
Author Manuscript

Vedolizumab has no known systemic immunosuppressive effects and reported rates of

serious infection are low.(88) There have been no head-to-head studies comparing the
relative safety of vedolizumab with TNF-α antagonists or other immunosuppressive agents.
Indirect comparisons through meta-analyses have revealed no significant differences in
safety profiles between the different biologics.(89, 90) As further safety data accumulate,
such targeted therapy with low likelihood of systemic immunosuppression may prove to be
an attractive option in older patients.

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 10

SURGERY IN ELDERLY IBD PATIENTS

Author Manuscript

Surgery remains an important treatment option in patients for whom medical management
has failed.(91) Approximately 25% of all intestinal surgeries for IBD are performed in
patients >55 years old.(92) Total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis
(IPAA; commonly described as the “J pouch”) is currently the standard of care in the
surgical management of UC that is refractory to conservative management.(91)
Historically, IPAAs were not widely performed in elderly IBD patients, largely owing to
concerns about incontinence. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons
recommends careful attention to the patient’s mental status, anal sphincter function, and
underlying comorbidities, as well as patient education on the associated risks and potential
functional difficulties when considering IPAA surgery.(93)

As for medical therapy, there may be a higher frequency of complications in the immediate
Author Manuscript

post-operative period in older patients. In an analysis of administrative data on patients who

underwent IPAA for UC, postoperative complication rates were similar among those aged ≤60
and >60 years, and hospital stays were slightly longer among older versus younger patients (8.2
days vs 7.4 days; P = 0.035).(94) Pellino et al reported that while elderly UC patients had more
comorbidities than their younger counterparts, there were no significant between-group
differences in bowel control after IPAA.(95) Further, in a study of patients undergoing elective
surgery (ie, restorative proctocolectomy), postoperative complication rates were comparable
between the younger and older age cohorts.(96) In contrast, in a retrospective database study of
patients who received IPAA for UC, multivariate analysis revealed that the only significant
factor predisposing patients to fecal leakage was older age at the time of surgery (OR: 1.07;
95% CI: 1.02–1.12; P = 0.005).(97) In a more recent analysis, 30-day postoperative mortality
rates were significantly higher among CD patients aged ≥65 versus those aged <65 years (4.2%
Author Manuscript

vs 0.3%; P < 0.001).(98) Among UC patients, corresponding rates were 6.1% and 0.7%,
respectively (P < 0.001).(98)

Patient age, type of admission, presence and number of comorbid conditions, including
congestive heart failure, thromboembolic disease, and liver and renal diseases are
associated with increased postoperative mortality.(92) In one small study of elderly UC
patients who underwent emergency surgery during a 26-year period, 27% (8/30) of patients
aged ≥60 years died within 30 postoperative days. By contrast, <1% of elderly patients
(1/114) died after elective surgery for UC.(99)

In general, elderly patients are hospitalized more often than younger patients. Among IBD-
related hospital admissions in the US in 2004, 25% of patients were older than 65 years.
(100) Further, data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample indicate that elderly patients
Author Manuscript

experience worse outcomes after hospitalization, with 15.7% of IBD patients aged 65 to 84
years and 35% of patients aged over 85 years requiring discharge to a nursing home or
rehabilitation facility compared with less than 1% in individuals aged under 45 years.
Moreover, home healthcare after hospital discharge was required by 12.6% of patients aged 65
to 84 years versus 4.7% of those aged 18 to 45 years.(100) According to a recent meta-analysis,
immunomodulator and biologic therapies were significantly less likely to be used in older-onset
IBD patients and the rate of surgery was higher in older-onset compared to

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 11

early-onset UC patients. The use of biologic therapies in older-onset CD and UC

Author Manuscript

patients could potentially reduce the likelihood of surgery.(9)

CLINICAL CHALLENGES IN THE ELDERLY

Pharmacologic Management of IBD in the Setting of Comorbidities
A particular challenge in the management of elderly IBD patients is selection and
continuation of therapy in the setting of comorbidities and polypharmacy.(101) For
example, poor lung function in patients with comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease may make an IBD patient more susceptible to developing pneumonia or have more
severe outcomes as a consequence. Other conditions become more prevalent in the elderly
population, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes, presenting distinct challenges for
clinicians who manage patients with comorbid IBD.(101) For example, patients with
diabetes mellitus and ulcerative colitis share a host of complications including peripheral
Author Manuscript

neuropathy, reduced bone density, infection, and thromboembolism that challenge both
diagnosis and treatment.(102)

Some comorbidities may suppress immune function; therefore, caution should be exercised when
treating these patients with systemic immunosuppressive agents. In a study of 2,766 patients
receiving immunomodulator therapy, 19% of patients with underlying diabetes developed an
infection within 1 year compared with only 8% of those without diabetes, with this effect
remaining significant on multivariable analysis.(16) Medications used for the treatment of IBD
may in turn worsen a preexisting comorbidity. For example, hypertension, hyperglycemia, and
congestive heart failure may all be worsened by steroid use.(101) Steroid use can also precipitate
psychotic manifestations.(101) TNF-α antagonists are contraindicated in patients with class III-
IV New York Heart Association heart failure.(103)
Author Manuscript

Given the association between age and cancer, many older IBD patients may have had
prior malignancy, and are thus at higher risk for cancer recurrence or new primary tumors.
Although active untreated cancer remains a contraindication to immunosuppression,
emerging data suggest that thiopurine or TNF-α antagonists may be safe in patients with
prior malignancy.(85, 104, 105) In a retrospective analysis of patients with previous
cancer, the time to a new cancer was similar whether patients received TNF-α antagonist
monotherapy, TNF-α antagonist and methotrexate/thiopurine combination therapy, or
methotrexate or thiopurine monotherapy (P = 0.22).(85) Similarly, in another observational
cohort study, while a history of cancer increased the risk of developing a new or recurrent
cancer, treatment with immunomodulators did not influence that risk.(104) A meta-analysis
of 16 studies of 11,702 patients with IBD, rheumatoid arthritis, or psoriasis and prior
Author Manuscript

diagnosis of cancer found rates of cancer recurrence to be 33.8 per 1000 PY with TNF-α
antagonist monotherapy, 36.2 per 1000 PY with immunomodulatory monotherapy, and
37.5 per 1000 PY without immunosuppressive therapy.(105) Although more long-term
experience is needed, current evidence does not support an increase in malignancy risk
with integrin antagonist use.(88) However, cancer-specific risks exist, such as between
thiopurines and nonmelanoma skin cancer,(56) making them a less suitable option for those
with a past history of this cancer.

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 12

Ultimately, minimizing unnecessary pharmacologic exposure that might exacerbate a

Author Manuscript

comorbid condition is essential in all patients. The presence of comorbid conditions

necessitates close collaboration among treatment providers for coordinated decision-making
and optimal outcomes.

Combination Therapy
The relative risks and benefits of combination therapy in an older population are unclear. In
randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in the general population, combination
immunomodulator therapy with infliximab is associated with higher trough levels, reduced
rates of anti-drug antibodies, and greater clinical and endoscopic response.(106) In addition,
risks with such therapy appear low except for a small increase in risk of lymphoma,
primarily associated with thiopurine use.(55) However, the use of combination therapy in
an older cohort was associated with greater rates of treatment discontinuation contrasting
Author Manuscript

with results obtained in younger cohorts, whereby combination therapy resulted in superior
outcomes or had no effect on treatment durability.(76) These observations are substantiated
by the Markov modeling by Scott and colleagues, who found that for patients older than 65
years, the benefits of combination therapy may be outweighed by the associated risk of
lymphoma, especially with long-term exposure.(107) However, further research is needed
to accurately inform practice and decisions need to be individualized based on age,
comorbidity, and likelihood of aggressive course of IBD.

Treatment Adherence
Adherence is a complex and multifactorial issue, influenced by several factors including the
physician–patient relationship, lack of insight into illness, perception of lack of benefit,
financial burden, and forgetfulness.(108) In elderly patients, complex dosing regimens and
Author Manuscript

polypharmacy add to the rate of nonadherence.(3) Medication nonadherence in IBD has

been associated with disease flares, increased healthcare costs, anxiety, and
moodiness.(109, 110)

Polypharmacy is common in the IBD elderly population, with 22% of patients taking more
than 5 different medications and 94.7% taking more than 3 medications. A mean number of
7 agents per patient were reported to be taken regularly by elderly IBD patients.(27) A meta-
analysis of studies published between 1986 and 2000 examined the relationship between
number of daily doses and rate of adherence. Analysis of 76 studies from several disease
areas suggested that less frequent oral dosing is related to higher adherence. In fact,
significant differences in the rate of adherence were demonstrated between once daily and
three-times daily or four-times daily dosing.(111)
Author Manuscript

In addition to polypharmacy, the complex regimens often required to achieve clinical response
or remission in IBD increase the likelihood of nonadherence and medication-related errors.(12)
Thus, forgetting to take medication is reported to be one of the most common reason for
nonadherence across a variety of therapeutic classes.(3) Elderly patients with underlying
cognitive decline or with limited functional ability may be especially prone to nonadherence
with regimens involving multiple pills taken several times a day or with treatment administered
outside the home. Visiting nurse programs and other social support

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 13

mechanisms could play an important role in ensuring adherence and optimal outcomes in
Author Manuscript

this cohort.(100)

Insurance-Related Obstacles
The benefits of using highly potent agents earlier in IBD treatment, especially in CD, are
becoming more widely accepted. However, this strategy has yet to be formally assessed in
elderly patients. The lack of clinical data demonstrating the effectiveness of biologics and
immunomodulators in the elderly and the cost of these drugs constitute a big obstacle to their use
in this patient cohort. Recently, the center for Medicare and Medicaid Services adopted IBD-
specific quality measures targeting drug therapy optimization and calling for the use of steroid-
sparing therapies.(112) Despite these efforts, coverage by public insurance (eg, Medicare) is
limited or not available for certain drugs such as budesonide, extended release 5-ASA, and
injectable drugs, creating a barrier to treatment access for the elderly.
Author Manuscript

Defining Treatment Goals in the Elderly

Treatment goals for IBD have been shifting over recent years away from symptom control
toward objectively-measured endpoints.(113) Mucosal healing and the normalization of
disease biomarkers, such as fecal calprotectin in UC, are two such objective targets that
are increasingly being incorporated as either primary or exploratory endpoints in clinical
trials and in practice.

There is growing evidence supporting mucosal healing as a driver for sustained remission
and steroid-free remission, as well as for reduction in rates of surgery and hospitalization.
Rutgeerts and colleagues demonstrated in a postoperative setting that CD patients with
endoscopic evidence of active disease were more likely to have recurrence of symptoms
Author Manuscript

within the following 3 years than those with healed mucosa.(114) In fact, even in
asymptomatic patients, over half have endoscopic evidence of active inflammation and
structural bowel damage—eg, strictures and/or fistula—10 years after diagnosis.(115, 116)
A retrospective analysis of 495 patients (354 with UC and 141 with CD) after 1 year of
conventional treatment found that mucosal healing predicted less surgery in patients with
UC.(117) In patients with CD, mucosal healing was associated with fewer complications
and reduced steroid treatment.(117) Notably, no patient in this analysis had received
biologic treatment and 50% had achieved mucosal healing. Together, these and other studies
support the importance of mucosal healing for long-term treatment success. However, the
potential benefits of preventing long-term complications and improving long-term outcomes
in older patients should be weighed against the risks of therapy escalation. Older patients
without risk of aggressive disease may benefit from symptom improvement alone to attain
functional independence.
Author Manuscript

Utilizing biomarkers such as fecal calprotectin can provide noninvasive and cost-effective
disease evaluations for the elderly population.(113) Fecal calprotectin levels of <50 μg/g are
considered normal and have been reported to predict mucosal healing in patients with IBD.
(118) However, the degree to which change in fecal calprotectin levels correlate with
treatment response and remission is still under active investigation. In a recent review,
Bressler and colleagues suggested initiating strategies to control inflammation when

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 14

calprotectin levels are >250 μg/g; confirming possible inflammation with further
Author Manuscript

testing when calprotectin levels are >100 μg/g to 250 μg/g, and continuing therapy
when calprotectin levels are <100 μg/g.(119)

Colon Cancer Screening

It is well established that IBD can predispose a patient to colorectal cancer. A 2001 review
of 116 clinical trials estimated an overall prevalence of colorectal cancer in any UC
patient of 3.7% (95% CI: 3.2–4.2).(120) Further, the cumulative probability of cancer
increased with disease duration from 2% at 10 years to 18% at 30 years.

Several factors should be considered when deciding on the frequency of colon cancer
screening in IBD patients, including age of symptom onset, duration and extent of disease,
and family history. Because of a significant risk of colorectal cancer after 8 years of IBD,
the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines recommend examinations every 1
Author Manuscript

to 3 years beginning 8 years after IBD symptom onset or within 2 years in those with
extensive or left-sided colitis.(121) After two consecutive negative readings, screenings can
be extended out to 3 years, but are still relatively frequent in comparison to healthy adult
screenings. In healthy adults, the American College of Gastroenterology recommends a
colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 years.(122) Optimizing the frequency of
screening for colorectal neoplasia should depend on treatment and additional risk factors for
malignancy, including previous malignancy. Additional risks of performing colonoscopy in
elderly IBD patients, including cardiopulmonary complications and perforation, should be
weighed against the potential benefits of timely diagnosis of neoplasia.(123)

CONCLUSIONS
Author Manuscript

Management of IBD in the older patient poses unique challenges. Analysis of real-world
practice suggests frequent suboptimal management of such patients with overuse of
corticosteroids and underuse of steroid-sparing regimens including immunomodulators and
biologics, stemming in part from concerns of therapy-related adverse events, in particular
infection. As evidence accumulates about the relative safety and efficacy of each therapy in
an older IBD patient, early initiation of effective therapies may reduce steroid exposure and
related side effects in the elderly. Further data are also needed on whether gut-selective
immunosuppression may be a safer option in older patients, while achieving the same level
of efficacy as systemic immunosuppression. Additional unique challenges in older patients
are recognizing the impact of comorbidity on outcomes with treatment of IBD and
conversely the impact of IBD therapy on comorbidity. Evolving trends in the IBD treatment
landscape should always be translated to the older patient before they are utilized in this
Author Manuscript

population. Management of IBD in the older patient requires personalization, setting of

individual therapeutic goals (which should also include preservation of physical status and
maintenance of functional independence), and weighing risks versus benefits of
combination immunosuppression. Real-world studies, shared clinical experience, and
prospective studies with well-defined endpoints and patient populations can help structure
evidence-based decision-making and improve long-term clinical outcomes.

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 15

Acknowledgments
Author Manuscript

Medical writing assistance was provided by in Ventiv Medical Communications and supported by Takeda
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Publication management support was provided by Stephanie Blick of
Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.

Tamara Donaldson and Karen Lasch are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA.
Vijay Yajnik has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, NPS Pharma, Takeda, and UCB.

References
1. Ananthakrishnan AN. Personalizing therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases. Expert
Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 7:549–558. [PubMed: 23985004]
2. Molodecky NA, Soon IS, Rabi DM, et al. Increasing incidence and prevalence of the
inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology. 2012;
142:46–54. [PubMed: 22001864]
3. Katz S, Pardi DS. Inflammatory bowel disease of the elderly: frequently asked questions (FAQs).
Author Manuscript

Am J Gastroenterol. 2011; 106:1889–1897. [PubMed: 21862997]

4. Loftus CG, Loftus EV Jr, Harmsen WS, et al. Update on the incidence and prevalence of Crohn’s
disease and ulcerative colitis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1940–2000. Inflamm Bowel Dis.
2007; 13:254–261. [PubMed: 17206702]
5. Harper PC, McAuliffe TL, Beeken WL. Crohn’s disease in the elderly. A statistical comparison
with younger patients matched for sex and duration of disease. Arch Intern Med. 1986; 146:753–
755. [PubMed: 3963958]
6. Foxworthy DM, Wilson JA. Crohn’s disease in the elderly. Prolonged delay in diagnosis. J
Am Geriatr Soc. 1985; 33:492–495. [PubMed: 4008848]
7. Gisbert JP, Chaparro M. Systematic review with meta-analysis: inflammatory bowel disease in the
elderly. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014; 39:459–477. [PubMed: 24405149]
8. Lakatos PL, David G, Pandur T, et al. IBD in the elderly population: results from a population-based
study in Western Hungary, 1977–2008. J Crohns Colitis. 2011; 5:5–13. [PubMed: 21272797]
9. Ananthakrishnan AN, Shi HY, Tang W, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: phenotype
Author Manuscript

and clinical outcomes of older-onset inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;
10:1224– 1236. [PubMed: 26928965]
10. Castle SC. Clinical relevance of age-related immune dysfunction. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;
31:578– 585. [PubMed: 10987724]
11. Toruner M, Loftus EV Jr, Harmsen WS, et al. Risk factors for opportunistic infections in patients with
inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2008; 134:929–936. [PubMed: 18294633]
12. Ha CY. Diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease in older patients.
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2012; 8:669–670. [PubMed: 24683374]
13. Parian A, Ha CY. Older age and steroid use are associated with increasing polypharmacy
and potential medication interactions among patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015; 21:1392–1400. [PubMed: 25856768]
14. Johnson SL, Bartels CM, Palta M, et al. Biological and steroid use in relationship to quality
measures in older patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a US Medicare cohort study.
BMJ Open. 2015; 5:e008597.
Author Manuscript

15. Brassard P, Bitton A, Suissa A, et al. Oral corticosteroids and the risk of serious infections in
patients with elderly-onset inflammatory bowel diseases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;
109:1795– 1802. [PubMed: 25267328]
16. Ananthakrishnan AN, Cagan A, Cai T, et al. Diabetes and the risk of infections with
immunomodulator therapy in inflammatory bowel diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther.
2015; 41:1141–1148. [PubMed: 25864945]
17. Lobaton T, Ferrante M, Rutgeerts P, et al. Efficacy and safety of anti-TNF therapy in elderly
patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 42:441–451.
[PubMed: 26104047]

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 16

18. Yajnik V, Khan N, Dubinsky M, et al. Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis
and Crohn’s disease patients stratified by age. Adv Ther. 2017; [Epub ahead of print]. doi:
Author Manuscript

10.1007/ s12325-016-0467-6
19. Bohm SK, Kruis W. Long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily mesalazine granules for
the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2014; 7:369–383.
[PubMed: 25285021]
20. Collier HO, Francis AA, McDonald-Gibson WJ, et al. Inhibition of prostaglandin biosynthesis by
sulphasalazine and its metabolites. Prostaglandins. 1976; 11:219–225. [PubMed: 4854]
21. Dignass A, Lindsay JO, Sturm A, et al. Second European evidence-based consensus on the
diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 2: current management. J Crohns
Colitis. 2012; 6:991–1030. [PubMed: 23040451]
22. Kornbluth A, Sachar DB. Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of G.
Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American College Of Gastroenterology, Practice
Parameters Committee. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010; 105:501–523. [PubMed: 20068560]
23. Sutherland L, Macdonald JK. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in
ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD000543. [PubMed: 16625536]
Author Manuscript

24. Sutherland L, Macdonald JK. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in
ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD000544. [PubMed: 16625537]
25. Ford AC, Kane SV, Khan KJ, et al. Efficacy of 5-aminosalicylates in Crohn’s disease: systematic
review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011; 106:617–629. [PubMed: 21407190]
26. Stepaniuk P, Bernstein CN, Targownik LE, et al. Characterization of inflammatory bowel disease
in elderly patients: A review of epidemiology, current practices and outcomes of current
management strategies. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 29:327–333. [PubMed: 26069892]
27. Juneja M, Baidoo L, Schwartz MB, et al. Geriatric inflammatory bowel disease: phenotypic
presentation, treatment patterns, nutritional status, outcomes, and comorbidity. Dig Dis Sci.
2012; 57:2408–2415. [PubMed: 22359191]
28. Charpentier C, Salleron J, Savoye G, et al. Natural history of elderly-onset inflammatory
bowel disease: a population-based cohort study. Gut. 2014; 63:423–432. [PubMed: 23408350]
29. Bautista MC, Otterson MF, Zadvornova Y, et al. Surgical outcomes in the elderly with
inflammatory bowel disease are similar to those in the younger population. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;
Author Manuscript

58:2955–2962. [PubMed: 23836319]

30. Nimmons D, Limdi JK. Elderly patients and inflammatory bowel disease. World J
Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 7:51–65. [PubMed: 26855812]
31. Gisbert JP, Gonzalez-Lama Y, Mate J. 5-Aminosalicylates and renal function in inflammatory bowel
disease: a systematic review. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007; 13:629–638. [PubMed: 17243140]
32. Barnes PJ. How corticosteroids control inflammation: Quintiles Prize Lecture 2005. Br J
Pharmacol. 2006; 148:245–254. [PubMed: 16604091]
33. Farrell RJ, Kelleher D. Glucocorticoid resistance in inflammatory bowel disease. J
Endocrinol. 2003; 178:339–346. [PubMed: 12967327]
34. Carter MJ, Lobo AJ, Travis SP, et al. Guidelines for the management of inflammatory
bowel disease in adults. Gut. 2004; 53:v1–v16. [PubMed: 15306569]
35. Brown ES, Chandler PA. Mood and cognitive changes during systemic corticosteroid therapy.
Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2001; 3:17–21. [PubMed: 15014624]
36. Botoman VA, Bonner GF, Botoman DA. Management of inflammatory bowel disease. Am
Author Manuscript

Fam Physician. 1998; 57:57–68. 71–52. [PubMed: 9447214]

37. Tsironi E, Hadjidakis D, Mallas E, et al. Comparison of T- and Z-score in identifying risk factors
of osteoporosis in inflammatory bowel disease patients. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact.
2008; 8:79–84. [PubMed: 18398269]
38. Tornatore KM, Logue G, Venuto RC, et al. Cortisol pharmacodynamics after
methylprednisolone administration in young and elderly males. J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;
37:304–311. [PubMed: 9115056]
39. Swaroop PP. Inflammatory bowel diseases in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med. 2007; 23:809–
821. [PubMed: 17923339]

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 17

40. Akerkar GA, Peppercorn MA, Hamel MB, et al. Corticosteroid-associated complications in
elderly Crohn’s disease patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997; 92:461–464. [PubMed: 9068470]
Author Manuscript

41. Blackburn D, Hux J, Mamdani M. Quantification of the risk of corticosteroid-induced dabetes

mellitus among the elderly. J Gen Intern Med. 2002; 17:717–720. [PubMed: 12220369]
42. Geisz M, Ha C, Kappelman M, et al. Medication utilization and the impact of continued
corticosteroid use on patient-reported outcomes in early patients with inflammatory bowel
disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016; 22:S16.
43. Lichtenstein GR, Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, et al. Management of Crohn’s disease in adults. Am
J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104:465–483. [PubMed: 19174807]
44. American Gastroenterological Association. Adult inflammatory bowel disease physician
performance measures set. 2011. Available at: http://www.gastro.org/practice/quality-
initiatives/ IBD_measures.pdf
45. Melmed GY, Siegel CA. Quality improvement in inflammatory bowel disease.
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013; 9:286–292. [PubMed: 23943663]
46. Melmed GY, Siegel CA, Spiegel BM, et al. Quality indicators for inflammatory bowel disease:
development of process and outcome measures. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013; 19:662–668.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 23388547]
47. Nguyen GC, Devlin SM, Afif W, et al. Defining quality indicators for best-practice management
of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 28:275–285.
[PubMed: 24839622]
48. Marin-Jimenez I, Pena AS. Budesonide for ulcerative colitis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2006;
98:362– 373. [PubMed: 16944997]
49. Lofberg R, Danielsson A, Suhr O, et al. Oral budesonide versus prednisolone in patients
with active extensive and left-sided ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 1996; 110:1713–
1718. [PubMed: 8964395]
50. Cossu A, Biancone L, Ascolani M, et al. “In vitro” azathioprine-induced changes in peripheral
T cell apoptosis and IFN-gamma production associate with drug response in patients with
Crohn’s Disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2013; 7:441–450. [PubMed: 22840925]
51. Feagan BG, Rochon J, Fedorak RN, et al. Methotrexate for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. The
North American Crohn’s Study Group Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332:292–297.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 7816064]
52. Hazlewood GS, Rezaie A, Borman M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of immunosuppressants
and biologics for inducing and maintaining remission in Crohn’s disease: a network meta-analysis.
Gastroenterology. 2015; 148:344–354. [PubMed: 25448924]
53. Dharmasiri S, Johnson H, McLaughlin S, et al. PTU-109. Azathioprine in the elderly--is
it tolerated and is it safe? Gut. 2014; 63:A87.
54. Beaugerie L, Brousse N, Bouvier AM, et al. Lymphoproliferative disorders in patients
receiving thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective observational cohort
study. Lancet. 2009; 374:1617–1625. [PubMed: 19837455]
55. Khan N, Abbas AM, Lichtenstein GR, et al. Risk of lymphoma in patients with ulcerative
colitis treated with thiopurines: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterology.
2013; 145:1007–1015. [PubMed: 23891975]
56. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Khosrotehrani K, Carrat F, et al. Increased risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers
in patients who receive thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2011;
141:1621–1628. [PubMed: 21708105]
Author Manuscript

57. Abbas AM, Almukhtar RM, Loftus EV Jr, et al. Risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin
cancer in ulcerative colitis patients treated with thiopurines: a nationwide retrospective cohort.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014; 109:1781–1793. [PubMed: 25244964]
58. de Mattos BR, Garcia MP, Nogueira JB, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease: an overview of
immune mechanisms and biological treatments. Mediators Inflamm. 2015; 2015:493012.
[PubMed: 26339135]
59. Pache I, Rogler G, Felley C. TNF-alpha blockers in inflammatory bowel diseases: practical
consensus recommendations and a user’s guide. Swiss Med Wkly. 2009; 139:278–287.
[PubMed: 19452290]

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 18

60. Komatsu M, Kobayashi D, Saito K, et al. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha in serum of patients with
inflammatory bowel disease as measured by a highly sensitive immuno-PCR. Clin Chem.
Author Manuscript

2001; 47:1297–1301. [PubMed: 11427462]

61. Hanauer SB, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, et al. Maintenance infliximab for Crohn’s disease: the
ACCENT I randomised trial. Lancet. 2002; 359:1541–1549. [PubMed: 12047962]
62. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy
for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:2462–2476. [PubMed: 16339095]
63. Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical
response and remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: the CHARM trial. Gastroenterology.
2007; 132:52–65. [PubMed: 17241859]
64. Sandborn WJ, van Assche G, Reinisch W, et al. Adalimumab induces and maintains clinical remission
in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2012; 142:257–
265. [PubMed: 22062358]
65. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Stoinov S, et al. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of Crohn’s
disease. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:228–238. [PubMed: 17634458]
66. Schreiber S, Khaliq-Kareemi M, Lawrance IC, et al. Maintenance therapy with certolizumab
Author Manuscript

pegol for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:239–250. [PubMed: 17634459]
67. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Marano C, et al. Subcutaneous golimumab induces clinical response
and remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2014;
146:85–95. [PubMed: 23735746]
68. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Marano C, et al. Subcutaneous golimumab maintains clinical
response in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2014; 146:96–
109. [PubMed: 23770005]
69. Soler D, Chapman T, Yang LL, et al. The binding specificity and selective antagonism of
vedolizumab, an anti-alpha4beta7 integrin therapeutic antibody in development for
inflammatory bowel diseases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2009; 330:864–875. [PubMed: 19509315]
70. Biogen. Tysabri (natalizumab) [package insert]. Cambridge, MA: Biogen Idec Inc; 2013.
71. Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy
for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:699–710. [PubMed: 23964932]
72. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance
Author Manuscript

therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:711–721. [PubMed: 23964933]
73. Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ, Gasink C, et al. Ustekinumab as induction and maintenance therapy for
Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:1946–1960. [PubMed: 27959607]
74. van Deen WK, van Oijen MG, Myers KD, et al. A nationwide 2010–2012 analysis of U.S.
health care utilization in inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014; 20:1747–
1753. [PubMed: 25137415]
75. Cottone M, Kohn A, Daperno M, et al. Advanced age is an independent risk factor for severe
infections and mortality in patients given anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for inflammatory
bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 9:30–35. [PubMed: 20951835]
76. Desai A, Zator ZA, de Silva P, et al. Older age is associated with higher rate of discontinuation of anti-
TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013; 19:309–
315. [PubMed: 22605668]
77. Schneeweiss S, Setoguchi S, Weinblatt ME, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy and
the risk of serious bacterial infections in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis
Rheum. 2007; 56:1754–1764. [PubMed: 17530704]
Author Manuscript

78. Alcain G, Andrade RJ, Queipo de Llano MP, et al. Acute leukemia after infliximab therapy. Am
J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98:2577. [PubMed: 14638375]
79. Bickston SJ, Lichtenstein GR, Arseneau KO, et al. The relationship between infliximab treatment and
lymphoma in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 1999; 117:1433–1437. [PubMed: 10579985]
80. Brown SL, Greene MH, Gershon SK, et al. Tumor necrosis factor antagonist therapy and
lymphoma development: twenty-six cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration.
Arthritis Rheum. 2002; 46:3151–3158. [PubMed: 12483718]

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 19

81. Long MD, Martin CF, Pipkin CA, et al. Risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer
among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2012; 143:390–399.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 22584081]
82. Lichtenstein GR, Feagan BG, Cohen RD, et al. Drug therapies and the risk of malignancy in
Crohn’s disease: results from the TREAT Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014; 109:212–
223. [PubMed: 24394749]
83. Sifuentes H, Kane S. Monitoring for extra-intestinal cancers in IBD. Curr Gastroenterol Rep.
2015; 17:42. [PubMed: 26364836]
84. Nyboe Andersen N, Pasternak B, Basit S, et al. Association between tumor necrosis factor-
alpha antagonists and risk of cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. JAMA. 2014;
311:2406–2413. [PubMed: 24938563]
85. Axelrad J, Bernheim O, Colombel JF, et al. Risk of new or recurrent cancer in patients with
inflammatory bowel disease and previous cancer exposed to immunosuppressive and anti-tumor
necrosis factor agents. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 14:58–64. [PubMed: 26247164]
86. Bloomgren G, Richman S, Hotermans C, et al. Risk of natalizumab-associated progressive
multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1870–1880. [PubMed: 22591293]
Author Manuscript

87. Morganstern B, Singh N, Targan S, et al. Single-center experience of vedolizumab in patients

with inflammatory bowel disease: does age matter? Gastroenterology. 2015; 148:S250.
88. Colombel JF, Sands BE, Rutgeerts P, et al. The safety of vedolizumab for ulcerative colitis
and Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2016; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311079
89. Bonovas S, Fiorino G, Allocca M, et al. Biologic therapies and risk of infection and malignancy
in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 14:1385–1397. [PubMed: 27189910]
90. Mocko P, Kawalec P, Pilc A. Safety profile of biologic drugs in the therapy of ulcerative colitis:
a systematic review and network meta-Analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2016; 36:870–879.
[PubMed: 27312826]
91. Hwang JM, Varma MG. Surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol.
2008; 14:2678–2690. [PubMed: 18461653]
92. Kaplan GG, Hubbard J, Panaccione R, et al. Risk of comorbidities on postoperative outcomes in
patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Arch Surg. 2011; 146:959–964. [PubMed: 21844437]
Author Manuscript

93. Ross H, Steele SR, Varma M, et al. Practice parameters for the surgical treatment of
ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014; 57:5–22. [PubMed: 24316941]
94. Cohan JN, Bacchetti P, Varma MG, et al. Outcomes after ileoanal pouch surgery in frail and
older adults. J Surg Res. 2015; 198:327–333. [PubMed: 25937568]
95. Pellino G, Sciaudone G, Candilio G, et al. Complications and functional outcomes of
restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis in the elderly. BMC Surg. 2013; 13:S9.
[PubMed: 24267006]
96. Bauer JJ, Gorfine SR, Gelernt IM, et al. Restorative proctocolectomy in patients older than
fifty years. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997; 40:562–565. [PubMed: 9152184]
97. Kim H, Sun L, Gurland B, et al. Does stool leakage increase in aging pouches? Dis Colon
Rectum. 2015; 58:1158–1163. [PubMed: 26544813]
98. Bollegala N, Jackson TD, Nguyen GC. Increased postoperative mortality and complications
among elderly patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: an analysis of the National Surgical
Quality Improvement Program cohort. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 14:1274–1281.
[PubMed: 26656299]
Author Manuscript

99. Ikeuchi H, Uchino M, Matsuoka H, et al. Prognosis following emergency surgery for
ulcerative colitis in elderly patients. Surg Today. 2014; 44:39–43. [PubMed: 23553422]
100. Ananthakrishnan AN, Binion DG. Treatment of ulcerative colitis in the elderly. Dig Dis.
2009; 27:327–334. [PubMed: 19786760]
101. Roman AL, Munoz F. Comorbidity in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol.
2011; 17:2723–2733. [PubMed: 21734780]
102. Maconi G, Furfaro F, Sciurti R, et al. Glucose intolerance and diabetes mellitus in ulcerative
colitis: pathogenetic and therapeutic implications. World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20:3507–
3515. [PubMed: 24707133]

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 20

103. Sinagra E, Perricone G, Romano C, et al. Heart failure and anti tumor necrosis factor-alpha
in systemic chronic inflammatory diseases. Eur J Intern Med. 2013; 24:385–392. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

23333028]
104. Beaugerie L, Carrat F, Colombel JF, et al. Risk of new or recurrent cancer under
immunosuppressive therapy in patients with IBD and previous cancer. Gut. 2014; 63:1416–
1423. [PubMed: 24162591]
105. Shelton E, Laharie D, Scott FI, et al. Cancer recurrence following immune-suppressive
therapies in patients with immune-mediated diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gastroenterology. 2016; 151:97–109. [PubMed: 27039969]
106. van Schaik T, Maljaars JP, Roopram RK, et al. Influence of combination therapy with immune
modulators on anti-TNF trough levels and antibodies in patients with IBD. Inflamm Bowel
Dis. 2014; 20:2292–2298. [PubMed: 25230167]
107. Scott FI, Vajravelu RK, Bewtra M, et al. The benefit-to-risk balance of combining infliximab
with azathioprine varies with age: a markov model. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13:302–
309. [PubMed: 25117775]
108. Kane SV. Strategies to improve adherence and outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis.
Author Manuscript

Drugs. 2008; 68:2601–2609. [PubMed: 19093702]

109. Higgins PD, Rubin DT, Kaulback K, et al. Systematic review: impact of non-adherence to
5-aminosalicylic acid products on the frequency and cost of ulcerative colitis flares.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 29:247–257. [PubMed: 18945258]
110. Lopez A, Billioud V, Peyrin-Biroulet C, et al. Adherence to anti-TNF therapy in
inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013; 19:1528–
1533. [PubMed: 23518810]
111. Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C. A systematic review of the associations between dose
regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther. 2001; 23:1296–1310. [PubMed: 11558866]
112. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [Accessed February 13, 2017] Physician
Quality Reporting System. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-
Assessment-Instruments/PQRS/index.html. Last updated October 11, 2016
113. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Sandborn W, Sands BE, et al. Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory
Bowel Disease (STRIDE): Determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target. Am J Gastroenterol.
2015; 110:1324–1338. [PubMed: 26303131]
Author Manuscript

114. Rutgeerts P, Geboes K, Vantrappen G, et al. Predictability of the postoperative course of

Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 1990; 99:956–963. [PubMed: 2394349]
115. Solberg IC, Lygren I, Jahnsen J, et al. Clinical course during the first 10 years of ulcerative
colitis: results from a population-based inception cohort (IBSEN Study). Scand J Gastroenterol.
2009; 44:431–440. [PubMed: 19101844]
116. Solberg IC, Vatn MH, Hoie O, et al. Clinical course in Crohn’s disease: results of a
Norwegian population-based ten-year follow-up study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;
5:1430–1438. [PubMed: 18054751]
117. Froslie KF, Jahnsen J, Moum BA, et al. Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease:
results from a Norwegian population-based cohort. Gastroenterology. 2007; 133:412–422.
[PubMed: 17681162]
118. Roseth AG, Aadland E, Grzyb K. Normalization of faecal calprotectin: a predictor of
mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;
39:1017– 1020. [PubMed: 15513345]
Author Manuscript

119. Bressler B, Panaccione R, Fedorak RN, et al. Clinicians’ guide to the use of fecal calprotectin
to identify and monitor disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Can J Gastroenterol
Hepatol. 2015; 29:369–372. [PubMed: 26125109]
120. Eaden JA, Abrams KR, Mayberry JF. The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-
analysis. Gut. 2001; 48:526–535. [PubMed: 11247898]
121. Farraye FA, Odze RD, Eaden J, et al. AGA medical position statement on the diagnosis and
management of colorectal neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology.
2010; 138:738–745. [PubMed: 20141808]

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 21

122. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for
colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104:739–750.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 19240699]
123. Lin OS. Performing colonoscopy in elderly and very elderly patients: risks, costs and benefits.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 6:220–226. [PubMed: 24932373]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 22
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1. Rise in the IBD over the years

(A) Incidence rates of UC and (B) CD in Olmsted County, Minnesota between 1940 and
2000.(4) Unadjusted incidence rates for males and females were added to give the total cases per
100,000 person-years (PY). For comparison, the total age- and sex- adjusted rate between 1990
and 2000 was 8.8 per 100,000 PY for UC and 7.9 per 100,000 PY for CD. (C)
General population of the United States by age group according to the United States Census
a
Bureau. Projected numbers are reported in the millions.
a
2014 National population projections: Summary tables.
Author Manuscript

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.
 Ananthakrishnan et al. Page 23
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2. Utilization of different therapeutic agents in patients aged 65 years or older.(27)

In a retrospective observational study, electronic medical records from a 20-hospital
setting were reviewed from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 2010. Patterns for IBD
medication in a total of 383 IBD patients aged ≥65 years were summarized.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Inflamm Bowel Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 June 01.