Search

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently manifests at a young age, during the peak fertility years. Understanding the risks of negative pregnancy outcomes associated with IBD is crucial for effective pregnancy management and support. Additionally, it is essential to provide patients with the necessary knowledge to make informed choices and foster their confidence in navigating pregnancy while maintaining effective disease management. Although IBD frequently appears during the peak fertility years, knowledge about managing pregnancy in the context of IBD remains limited and often inaccurate among both physicians and patients. Our study aims to assess the complications occurring during pregnancy in patients with IBD, considering the level of disease activity, and to evaluate the standard of care provided to patients with chronic inflammatory conditions through a cohort analysis. Methods: Patients with IBD who had children were included in this single-center mixed-method (retrospective and prospective) study. Clinical data, disease progression, course of pregnancy, and complications were examined in women. Outcomes for children of men with IBD were also analyzed. To supplement the data, a survey addressing various pregnancy-related topics, including all patients from the university outpatient clinic for IBD, was conducted over a period of six months. Results: A total of 410 patients were screened retrospectively between 2010 and 2021. In total, 134 patients who had children were included in the study: 51.4% (n = 69) had Crohn's disease, 44% (n = 59) had ulcerative colitis, and 4.6% (n = 6) had unclassified inflammatory bowel disease. Of the women, 85% (n = 34) were in remission for at least three months before pregnancy, 14.6% (n = 6) experienced an acute flare-up during pregnancy, and 10.3% (n = 4) and 7.7% (n = 3) had active disease at the time of delivery and during breastfeeding, respectively. Patients with IBD who were in remission before pregnancy did not experience a higher risk of pregnancy complications (no cases of pre-eclampsia or placental abruption were reported in this group). However, the rates of gestational diabetes and fever during pregnancy were 10% for those in remission, compared to 25% for those with active disease. Conclusions: Patients with IBD in remission did not present an increased risk of pregnancy complications. However, our survey indicates that those with active disease at conception were more likely to experience complications such as gestational diabetes and fever. These findings underscore the importance of adequate patient education regarding the safety of various IBD medications during pregnancy in order to avoid pregnancy-related complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC), often fulfilling guideline criteria (GC) or expanded criteria (EC). When lesions exceed the EC, surgical resection is recommended. However, a subgroup of these patients are not treated surgically. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term follow-up of patients after ESD for EGC outside the EC (out of indication; OI). Methods: Patients who were included in the prospective German ESD registry were analyzed when ESD was performed for EGC. Patients were stratified in three groups according to histopathological features (GC, EC and OI). The results were evaluated in terms of patient characteristics, procedure characteristics and follow-up data. Results: Over a 48-month period, 195 patients from 14 German centers were included. In total, 71 lesions (36.4%) met the guideline criteria, 70 lesions (35.9%) corresponded to the expanded criteria and 54 lesions (27.7%) turned out to be OI. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher for the GC and EC groups than for the OI group (94.4% vs. 84.3% vs. 55.6%, p < 0.001). Additional surgery was not performed in 72% (39/54) of patients in the OI group. During a mean follow-up of 37 months, overall survival showed no significant difference between the EC and OI groups when endoscopic follow-up was performed without additional surgery (p = 0.064). Conclusions: The results show that a good long-term survival can be achieved after ESD for patients with OI lesions without additional surgery. The treatment decision has to be made on an individual basis, taking the patient's comorbidities and the risk of surgical resection into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study evaluated the effect of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support system on the performance and diagnostic confidence of endoscopists in their assessment of Barrett's esophagus (BE). Methods 96 standardized endoscopy videos were assessed by 22 endoscopists with varying degrees of BE experience from 12 centers. Assessment was randomized into two video sets: group A (review first without AI and second with AI) and group B (review first with AI and second without AI). Endoscopists were required to evaluate each video for the presence of Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN) and then decide on a spot for a targeted biopsy. After the second assessment, they were allowed to change their clinical decision and confidence level. Results AI had a stand-alone sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.2%, 68.9%, and 81.3%, respectively. Without AI, BE experts had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 83.3%, 58.1%, and 71.5%, respectively. With AI, BE nonexperts showed a significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity when videos were assessed a second time with AI (sensitivity 69.8% [95%CI 65.2%–74.2%] to 78.0% [95%CI 74.0%–82.0%]; specificity 67.3% [95%CI 62.5%–72.2%] to 72.7% [95%CI 68.2%–77.3%]). In addition, the diagnostic confidence of BE nonexperts improved significantly with AI. Conclusion BE nonexperts benefitted significantly from additional AI. BE experts and nonexperts remained significantly below the stand-alone performance of AI, suggesting that there may be other factors influencing endoscopists' decisions to follow or discard AI advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vedolizumab (VDZ) is a well-established and important therapeutic option in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the significance of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with VDZ remains a contradictory field in daily clinical practice. Our study aims to clarify the predictive impact of VDZ drug levels in long-term clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort. Methods: Patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) from a tertiary IBD referral center at the University Hospital Augsburg, Germany, were enrolled in this single-center retrospective data analysis. Clinical and endoscopic data were collected at month 6, month 12, and at the last time of follow-up, and outcomes were correlated with VDZ levels at week 6. Results: This study included 95 patients, 68.4% (n = 65) with UC, 24.2% (n = 23) with CD, and 7.4% (n = 7) with indeterminate colitis (CI). Patients with a mean VDZ treatment time of 17.83 months ± 14.56 showed clinical response in 29.5% (n = 28) and clinical remission in 45.3% (n = 43) at the end of the study. Endoscopic response occurred in 20.0% (n = 19) and endoscopic remission in 29.5% (n = 28) at the end of the study. The sustained beneficial effect of VDZ was also reflected in a significant change in biomarker levels. VDZ trough level at week 6 was determined in 48.4% (n = 46) with a mean of 41.79 µg/mL ± 24.58. A significant association between VDZ level at week 6 and both short and long-term outcomes could not be demonstrated. However, numerically higher VDZ levels were seen in patients with endoscopic and clinical improvement at month 6 and at the time of last follow-up. Conclusions: This study demonstrated efficacy and safety for VDZ in a real-world cohort. Although, for some parameters, a clear trend for higher VDZ levels at week 6 was seen, the efficacy of VDZ was not significantly correlated to VDZ level at week 6, which questions the predictive value of VDZ levels in the real world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 is a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), first described in 2019, with a significant impact on everyday life since then. In December 2020, the first vaccine against COVID-19 from BioNTech/Pfizer was approved for the first time. However, little is known about the immune response to vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and immunomodulators or biologics. The aim of our study was to investigate antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IBD receiving immunomodulators or biologics compared to healthy controls. Methods: This was a single-center study with a retrospective observational design. Seventy-two patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease were included. Matching data from 72 healthy employees of our hospital were used as the control group. Data were matched by propensity score to patients with IBD. Blood samples were taken from both groups for antibody response, and both groups received an accompanying questionnaire. Results: Sixty-five (90.3%) patients of the IBD group reported taking immunomodulatory therapy. The mean antibody level for all IBD patients was 1,257.1 U/mL (standard deviation [SD] 1,109.626) in males and 1,500.1 U/mL (SD 1142.760) in female IBD patients after full vaccination. Compared to the healthy group, reduced antibody response could be detected (IBD group 1,383.76 U/mL SD 1,125.617; control group 1,885.65 U/mL SD 727.572, p < 0.05). In this group, blood samples were taken with an average of 61.9 days after the first vaccination. There was no vaccination failure in the IBD group after 2 vaccinations. After the first vaccination, side effects, including muscle pain, pain at the injection site, and fatigue, were reported more often in IBD patients than in the control group (total symptoms IBD group 58.3%, control group 34.5%, p < 0.007). The opposite occurred after the second vaccination when side effects were higher in the control group (total symptoms IBD group 55.4%, control group 76%, p = 0.077). There was a trend to a reduced immune response in elderly patients. Disease duration and concomitant immunomodulatory therapy (TNF-alpha blockers, interleukin inhibitors, integrin inhibitors, methotrexate, or azathioprine) had no impact on the immune response. However, longer time to last medication given and time passed to vaccination in patients with IBD seems to have a positive impact on antibody levels. Conclusion: Overall, we could show a high antibody response to vaccination with COVID-19 in all patients with IBD after 2 vaccinations. Vaccination was well tolerated, and no other adverse events were detected. Concomitant immunomodulatory therapy (TNF-alpha blockers, interleukin inhibitors, integrin inhibitors, methotrexate, or azathioprine) had no impact on seroconversion. Further evaluation of antibody titers over time is mandatory to detect early the need for re-vaccination in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving immunosuppressive therapy might have an increased risk of developing a severe course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the development of antibodies in immunosuppressed patients with IBD compared to a healthy control group and to determine the effect of immunomodulators on the level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels before and after a third vaccination against SARS-CoV-2., Methods: This is a single-center study with a retrospective observational design. Seventy-one IBD patients matched by propensity score to 71 healthy employees (control group) were included. Blood was taken from both groups at predetermined times before and after the third booster vaccination., Results: All patients with IBD (n = 71, 100%) received immunomodulatory therapy. The mean antibody level before the third vaccination was 1,352.88 U/mL (SD = 1,011.489) in the IBD group and was not lower compared to the control group (p = 0.088). Gender, age, and disease duration had no significant impact on the development of antibody levels. Patients with TNF-alpha blockers had significantly lower antibody titers (p = 0.011) compared to the control group. Patients with integrin inhibitor therapy had significantly higher antibody titers (p = 0.003) than the controls. After the third vaccination, an increase in antibody titers was recorded in all patients in the IBD group., Conclusion: We recorded an antibody titer in all patients with IBD that was not significantly lower compared to healthy controls despite immunomodulatory therapy. The booster vaccination led to an increase in antibody levels in all patients with IBD., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background and study aims Bowel obstruction is a common complication in advanced cancer patients. Patients are restricted in quality of life (QOL) due to nausea, vomiting, or abdominal pain. Prospective data on the feasibility and benefit of decompressive percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (dPEG) are scarce. Patients and methods Patients suffering from symptomatic bowel obstruction due to advanced cancer were included prospectively in a single-center study when other treatments to eliminate the obstruction were impossible. Patients were given a questionnaire the day before dPEG (d-1) and, if the procedure was successful, the day after (d+1) and 14 days after the procedure (d14). Furthermore, lifetime after dPEG was assessed. Results 53 patients were included. dPEG was technically feasible in 34 of 53 (64.2%). Significant improvement could be shown for nausea and vomiting when comparing d-1 to d+1 (nausea ( P = 0.002), vomiting ( P < 0.001)) and when comparing d-1 to d14 ( P = 0.021 and P = 0.003, respectively). Comparing d+1 to d14, there was no further improvement. QOL improved significantly from 8.1 (mean) on d-1 to 5.9 (mean) on d+1 ( P < 0.001). Median survival after successful dPEG was 27 days (range 2-353). Conclusions dPEG is an effective method for quickly relieve symptoms of malignant bowel obstruction in advanced cancer patients. However, the technical success rate is limited and needs to be improved. Prospective studies comparing endoscopic and computed tomography-guided procedures are needed to avoid unsuccessful procedures in patients with advanced cancer and limited life expectancy., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Practices and hospitals are facing great challenges in coping with the COVID-19-pandemic. So far, data on the impact of the pandemic on gastroenterological facilities are lacking, especially on a temporal course. A database is lacking, especially for the outpatient care sector. University Hospital of Augsburg was commissioned to generate data on this as a part of the collaborative project B-FAST of the Network of University Medicine (NUM)., Methods: Gastroenterological institutions nationwide were surveyed by an online questionnaire. Recruitment was carried out via the German Society of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) and the Professional Association of Gastroenterologists in Private Practice (bng). This manuscript provides an overview of data on the use of protective equipment, pre-interventional testing of patients, staff screening and economic impact over the course of the pandemic., Results: 429 facilities answered the questionnaire. Practices tested their patients pre-interventionally significantly less often than clinics (7.8% vs. 82.6%). In clinics, inpatients (93.1%) were tested significantly more often than outpatients (72.2%). The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) increased significantly during the pandemic. It was shown that over 70% of facilities screened their staff for SARS-CoV-2 without cause. Clinics cancelled elective procedures significantly more often than practices in quarter 4/2020. Procedures and turnover decreased in 2020 compared to the previous year. However, fewer facilities were affected by a loss of revenue than expected in previous studies., Conclusion: Our data demonstrate the variable implementation of pre-interventional SARS-CoV-2 testing in outpatient and inpatient care. The use of adequate PPE and staff screening increased during the pandemic., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased., Methods: We considered 4128 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing on endoscopy diagnostic findings., Results: A cumulative number of 97 patients (1.8%) with GI bleeding were identified in the LEOSS registry and COKA registry. Of 4128 patients from the LEOSS registry, 66 patients (1.6%) had a GI bleeding. The rate of GI bleeding in patients with intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 4.5%. The use of therapeutic dose of anticoagulants showed a significant association with the increased incidence of bleeding in the critical phase of disease. The Charlson comorbidity index and the COVID-19 severity index were significantly higher in the group of patients with GI bleeding than in the group of patients without GI bleeding (5.83 (SD = 2.93) vs. 3.66 (SD = 3.06), p < 0.01 and 3.26 (SD = 1.69) vs. 2.33 (SD = 1.53), p < 0.01, respectively). In the COKA registry 31 patients (2.5%) developed a GI bleeding. Of these, the source of bleeding was identified in upper GI tract in 21 patients (67.7%) with ulcer as the most frequent bleeding source (25.8%, n = 8) followed by gastroesophageal reflux (16.1%, n = 5). In three patients (9.7%) GI bleeding source was located in lower GI tract caused mainly by diverticular bleeding (6.5%, n = 2). In seven patients (22.6%) the bleeding localization remained unknown., Conclusion: Consistent with previous research, comorbidities and disease severity correlate with the incidence of GI bleeding. Also, therapeutic anticoagulation seems to be associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding. Overall, the risk of GI bleeding seems not to be increased in COVID-19 patients., (© 2021 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)