Search

Background: Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a potentially life-threatening medical emergency that occurs in up to 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis. Although intravenous corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy, 30-40% of patients will not respond and need timely consideration of rescue therapy with (currently) either infliximab or ciclosporin or indeed colectomy, underscoring the importance of multidisciplinary care to ensure favourable outcomes for patients. We discuss the current evidence and present an approach to the management of ASUC for general and specialist clinicians caring for patients with ASUC., Sources of Data: The information in this review is derived from data published in peer- reviewed academic journals and registered clinical trials., Areas of Agreement: Management of acute severe colitis requires a multidisciplinary approach with early initiation with steroids and timely escalation of treatment to either medical rescue therapy or surgery., Areas of Controversy: Balancing the risks of delayed surgery vs. optimizing medical therapy, including accelerated dosing schedules for biologics, remains ambiguous., Growing Points: The position on newer molecules like Janus Kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, is a growing area with early real-world data showing promise for steroid refractory ASUC., Areas Timely for Developing Research: Developing predictive biomarkers and clinical risk scores for personalized rescue therapy selection is an evolving area of research., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic, relapsing-and-remitting, potentially progressive form of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with multidimensional and often negative effects on patients' lives. Fecal urgency, the sudden and compelling desire to defecate, often accompanied by impaired bowel control leading to frequent and urgent trips to the bathroom, is a distressing symptom, experienced by more than 50% of patients with UC. 1 Physicians frequently underestimate the burden of fecal urgency on patients' lives, with ramifications ranging from disruption in daily activities, social interactions, and emotional distress with resultant impairment in quality of life (QoL). 2,3 ., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: This study compares the effectiveness of different biologic therapies and sequences in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] using real-world data from a large cohort with long exposure., Methods: Demographic, disease, treatment, and outcome data were retrieved for patients in the UK IBD BioResource. Effectiveness of treatment was based on persistence free of discontinuation or failure, analysed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups., Results: In total, 13 222 evaluable patients received at least one biologic. In ulcerative colitis [UC] first-line vedolizumab [VDZ] demonstrated superior effectiveness over 5 years compared to anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents [p = 0.006]. VDZ was superior to both infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] after ADA and IFX failure respectively [p < 0.001 and p < 0.001]. Anti-TNF therapy showed similar effectiveness when used as first-line treatment, or after failure of VDZ. In Crohn's disease [CD] we found significant differences between first-line treatments over 10 years [p = 0.045], with superior effectiveness of IFX compared to ADA in perianal CD. Non-anti-TNF biologics were superior to a second anti-TNF after first-line anti-TNF failure in CD [p = 0.035]. Patients with UC or CD experiencing TNF failure due to delayed loss of response or intolerance had superior outcomes when switching to a non-anti-TNF biologic, rather than a second anti-TNF., Conclusions: We provide real-world evidence to guide biologic selection and sequencing in a range of common scenarios. Our findings challenge current guidelines regarding drug selection after loss of response to first anti-TNF treatment., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Background: Despite advances in ulcerative colitis (UC) therapies, a relatively undefined proportion of patients experience faecal incontinence (FI) in the absence of active inflammation. For this group, there remains a significant unmet need with a limited evidence base., Aims: We aimed to estimate the prevalence and impact of FI in UC., Methods: In a prospective cross-sectional study, patients with UC completed a series of validated questionnaires, including Rome IV FI criteria, an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-specific FI questionnaire (ICIQ-IBD), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and IBD-Control. UC remission was defined as faecal calprotectin (FCP) ≤250 μg/g, or IBD-control 8 score ≥13 and IBD-Control-VAS ≥ 85., Results: Of 255 patients with UC, overall, 20.4% fulfilled Rome IV criteria for FI. Rome IV FI prevalence did not differ between active and quiescent UC regardless of whether disease activity was defined by IBD-Control scores ± FCP (p = 0.25), or objectively with FCP thresholds of 250 μg/g (p = 0.86) and 100 μg/g (p = 0.95). Most patients (75.2%) reported FI when in 'remission' and during 'relapse' (90.6%) according to ICIQ-IBD. Those who reported FI according to both ICIQ-IBD and Rome IV definitions had higher anxiety, depression and worse quality-of-life (QoL) scores (p < 0.05). In those with Rome IV FI, there was a strong correlation between FI symptom severity and impaired QoL (r = 0.809, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The prevalence of FI in UC is high, even in remission, and associated with significant psychological distress, symptom burden and impaired QoL. These findings highlight the urgent need for further research and development of evidence-based treatments for FI in UC., (© 2023 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objectives: The role of diet in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains incompletely understood. Studies have previously examined dietary practices in IBD, but none have specifically focused on older-onset disease. IBD may put vulnerable groups at risk of nutritional deficiency and associated complications, potentially heightened by comorbidities, frailty and polypharmacy. Our objective was to describe dietary practices and beliefs in older-onset IBD., Methods: A questionnaire exploring dietary practices and beliefs was prospectively administered to 137 people with older-onset IBD attending gastroenterology clinics., Results: Thirty-two percent believed diet was the initiating factor for their IBD. This was significantly more likely in people with Crohn's disease than ulcerative colitis (P = 0.05) and in those who felt limited in their dietary choices due to cost (P = 0.008). Forty-three percent believed diet could trigger IBD relapse and 68% avoided dietary components to avoid relapse. Most frequently avoided were spicy and fatty foods, carbonated drinks, red meat, alcohol and raw fruit and vegetables. Twenty-two percent of participants had tried a whole food exclusion diet, most frequently gluten- or lactose-free. Almost a third avoided eating out (29%) or eating the same meal as their family (32%) to prevent relapse. Respondents rarely relied upon healthcare professionals or patient support organisations for their dietary information., Conclusion: Individuals with older-onset IBD report dietary practices with a high degree of consistency. Dietary avoidance may impact upon both nutritional and psychosocial wellbeing in this more vulnerable group and, as such, early dietetic assessment could help improve outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Diet is implicated in the aetiopathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and in generating symptoms. Few studies have explored dietary practices in people with IBD, in which participants perceived strong links between diet in triggering flares and maintaining remission. Fewer studies have explored dietary habits in self-reported remission. Our aim was to describe dietary practices and beliefs in those with inactive ulcerative colitis., Methods: A questionnaire was developed and prospectively administered to 208 participants with inactive ulcerative colitis attending IBD clinics., Results: Thirty-one percent believed diet was the initiating factor for ulcerative colitis with 37% believing diet could trigger relapse. Fifty-nine percent avoided dietary items to prevent relapse. Most frequently avoided were spicy (43%) and fatty (38%) foods, alcohol (27%), carbonated drinks (26%), coffee (24%) and milk products (21%). Females were more likely to practice dietary avoidance (P = 0.007). Twenty-three percent had used exclusion diets, most commonly gluten- or lactose-free. Those reporting relapse in the previous year were more likely to avoid the same menu as their family (P = 0.01) and females were less likely to eat out in order to prevent relapse (P = 0.004). Information resources guiding food avoidance included participants' own experiences (90%), healthcare professionals' advice (19%) and the internet (11%)., Conclusion: People with inactive ulcerative colitis hold dietary beliefs and display practices with a high level of consistency around perceived triggers. Food avoidance whilst in remission raises the possibility of visceral hypersensitivity or altered physiology alongside psychosocial, neurocognitive or co-existing functional factors., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the main entities of inflammatory bowel disease characterized by chronic remittent inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. The incidence and prevalence are on the rise worldwide, and the heterogeneity between patients and within individuals over time is striking. The progressive advance in our understanding of the etiopathogenesis coupled with an unprecedented increase in therapeutic options have changed the management towards evidence-based interventions by clinicians with patients. This guideline was stimulated and supported by the Emirates Gastroenterology and Hepatology Society following a systematic review and a Delphi consensus process that provided evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding diagnosis, evaluation of disease severity, appropriate and timely use of different investigations, choice of appropriate therapy for induction and remission phase according to disease severity, and management of main complications., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors declare no conflict of interests for this article., (©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Management of acute severe UC (ASUC) during the novel COVID-19 pandemic presents significant dilemmas. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific guidance using current British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines as a reference point., Design: We convened a RAND appropriateness panel comprising 14 gastroenterologists and an IBD nurse consultant supplemented by surgical and COVID-19 experts. Panellists rated the appropriateness of interventions for ASUC in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Median scores and disagreement index (DI) were calculated. Results were discussed at a moderated meeting prior to a second survey., Results: Panellists recommended that patients with ASUC should be isolated throughout their hospital stay and should have a SARS-CoV-2 swab performed on admission. Patients with a positive swab should be discussed with COVID-19 specialists. As per BSG guidance, intravenous hydrocortisone was considered appropriate as initial management; only in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was its use deemed uncertain. In patients requiring rescue therapy, infliximab with continuing steroids was recommended. Delaying colectomy because of COVID-19 was deemed inappropriate. Steroid tapering as per BSG guidance was deemed appropriate for all patients apart from those with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom a 4-6 week taper was preferred. Post-ASUC maintenance therapy was dependent on SARS-CoV-2 status but, in general, biologics were more likely to be deemed appropriate than azathioprine or tofacitinib. Panellists deemed prophylactic anticoagulation postdischarge to be appropriate in patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab., Conclusion: We have suggested COVID-19-specific adaptations to the BSG ASUC guideline using a RAND panel., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Accelerated induction regimens of infliximab have been proposed to improve response rates in patients with steroid-refractory acute severe colitis., Aim: To determine the differences in outcome for acute severe ulcerative colitis between accelerated and standard-dose infliximab METHODS: We collected data on hospitalised patients receiving differing regimens of rescue therapy for steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis. Our primary outcome was 30-day colectomy rate. Secondary outcomes were colectomy within index admission, and at 90 days and 12 months. We used propensity score analysis with optimal calliper matching using high risk covariates defined a priori to reduce potential provider selection bias., Results: We included 131 patients receiving infliximab rescue therapy; 102 received standard induction and 29 received accelerated induction. In the unmatched cohort, there was no difference by type of induction in the 30-day colectomy rates (18% vs 20%, P = .45), colectomy during index admission (13% vs 20%, P = .26) or overall colectomy (20% vs 24%, P = .38). In the propensity score-matched cohort of 52 patients, 30-day colectomy (57% vs 27%, P = .048) and index admission colectomy (53% vs 23%, P = .045) rates were higher in those receiving standard induction compared to accelerated induction but there was no difference in overall colectomy rates (57% vs 31%, P = .09). There was no significant difference in length of stay or in complication and infection rates., Conclusion: In a propensity score-matched cohort, steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis patients, short-term, but not long-term, colectomy rates appear to be lower in those receiving an accelerated induction regimen., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Acute severe ulcerative colitis is a life-threatening medical emergency, which can be associated with significant morbidity and is preventable through prompt and effective management. Corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of initial therapy, although a third of patients will not respond. Further management hinges on timely decisions with use of rescue therapy with ciclosporin or infliximab, without compromising the health or safety of the patient, or timely surgery. Although such patients need specialist care, it is imperative that emergency care physicians are aware of the important principles of management of this condition to achieve successful outcomes. Risk stratification and the use of predictive models using clinical parameters have reduced the morbidity associated with this condition.We discuss current evidence and present a clinical approach to clinicians involved in the emergency care of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis in this review., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose of Review: Patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis have an increased risk for the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Colitis-related dysplasia appears to confer the greatest risk. Colonoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia has been advocated by gastrointestinal societies. The aim of surveillance is the reduction of mortality and morbidity of CRC through detection and resection of dysplasia or detecting CRC at an earlier and potentially curable stage. Traditional surveillance has relied on mucosal assessment with targeted biopsy of visible lesions and random biopsy sampling on the premise that dysplasia was not visible at endoscopy. Advances in optical technology permitting increased detection of dysplasia and evidence that most dysplasia is visible has had practice-changing implications., Recent Findings: Emerging evidence favours chromoendoscopy (CE) for dysplasia detection and is gaining wider acceptance through recent international (International Consensus Statement on Surveillance and Management of Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SCENIC)) recommendations and endorsed by many gastrointestinal societies. Adoption of CE as the gold standard of surveillance has been met with by scepticism, from conflicting data, operational barriers and the need to understand the true impact of increasingly higher dysplasia detection on overall CRC mortality. Valid debate notwithstanding, implementation of a risk stratification protocol that includes CE is an effective approach allowing earlier detection of dysplasia and colorectal neoplasia, determination of surveillance intervals with appropriate allocation of resources and limiting morbidity from CRC and colonoscopy itself. Further prospective data should define the true and long-term impact of dysplasia detection with modern techniques.

Background: Corticosteroids are central to inducing remission in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but are ineffective maintenance agents., Aim: To benchmark steroid usage in British outpatients and assess factors associated with excess exposure., Methods: We recorded steroid use in unselected IBD outpatients. Cases meeting criteria for steroid dependency or excess were blind peer reviewed to determine whether steroid prescriptions were avoidable. Associations between steroid use and patient/institutional factors were analysed., Results: Of 1176 patients, 30% received steroids in the prior 12 months. 14.9% had steroid dependency or excess, which was more common in moderate/severe ulcerative colitis (UC) than Crohn's disease (CD) (42.6% vs 28.1%; P = .027). Steroid dependency or excess was deemed avoidable in 49.1%. The annual incidence of inappropriate steroid excess was 7.1%. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis revealed independent predictors of inappropriate steroid excess. The odds ratio (OR, 95%CI) for moderate/severe compared to mild/quiescent disease activity was 4.59 (1.53-20.64) for UC and 4.60 (2.21-12.00) for CD. In CD, lower rates of inappropriate steroid excess were found in centres with an IBD multi-disciplinary team (OR 0.62 [0.46-0.91]), whilst dedicated IBD clinics protected against inappropriate steroid excess in UC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21-0.94). The total number of GI trainees was associated with rates of inappropriate steroid excess., Conclusions: Steroid dependency or excess occurred in 14.9% of British IBD patients (in 7.1% potentially avoidable). We demonstrated positive effects of service configurations (IBD multi-disciplinary team, dedicated IBD clinics). Routine recording of steroid dependency or excess is feasible and should be considered a quality metric., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The idiopathic inflammatory bowel diseases comprise mainly two types of intestinal disorder, Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis. The clinical course is marked by exacerbations and remissions that occur spontaneously in response to treatment or intercurrent illness. The disease affects approximately 240,000 patients in the UK. Acute severe ulcerative colitis is a medical emergency; prompt effective treatment at the point of admission can avoid significant morbidity and be potentially life-saving. Although such patients need specialist management, it is imperative that emergency care physicians are aware of the important principles of management of this condition to achieve successful outcomes. Corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of initial therapy, but a third of patients will fail to respond, and further management involves critical and timely decisions on whether to use rescue therapy in the form of ciclosporin or infliximab without compromising the health or safety of the patient or to offer timely surgery. The evidence base for the choices for optimal management of this condition is presented.