Ha, Christina

AbstractBackgroundThe safety of a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is unknown.MethodsWe compared symptoms following a third SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose with symptoms after the second dose in IBD.ResultsThe study group included 594 patients (70% female, 58% BNT162b2). Overall, 41% reported symptoms after a third dose. Symptom frequency and severity were lower after the third dose relative to the second dose for every organ system, except for gastrointestinal symptoms which were marginally worse.ConclusionThe frequency and severity of symptoms after a third mRNA vaccine dose are generally similar or milder than after a second dose for most organ systems.

INTRODUCTION: To support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and providers surrounding biologic treatments, we created IBD&me (ibdandme.org)—a freely available, unbranded, interactive decision aid. We performed a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial comparing the impact of IBD&me on SDM vs a biologics fact sheet developed by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. METHODS: We enrolled patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being seen at a clinic within IBD Qorus—a multicenter adult IBD learning health system—between March 5, 2019, and May 14, 2021. Eligible patients included those with recent IBD-related symptoms who reported that they wanted to discuss biologics with their provider during their upcoming visit. Patients were randomized 1:1 using stratified block randomization and received an e-mail 1 week before their visit inviting them to review either IBD&me or a fact sheet. The primary outcome was patient perception of SDM as measured by the 9-Item SDM Questionnaire (0–100 scale; higher = better); the Student t test was used to compare outcomes between arms. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients were randomized (biologics fact sheet 75, IBD&me 77); most patients had Crohn's disease (66.4%) and were biologic-experienced (82.9%). No differences were seen between groups regarding SDM (fact sheet 72.6 ± 25.6, IBD&me 75.0 ± 20.8; P = .57). Most patients stated they would be likely to recommend the fact sheet (79.6%) or IBD&me (84.9%; P = .48) to another patient with IBD. DISCUSSION: No differences in outcomes were seen between IBD&me and the biologics fact sheet in this comparative effectiveness study; patients reported high satisfaction with both resources. Further study, particularly among biologic naïve patients, is needed to determine the utility of interactive components to IBD decision aids.

SummaryBackground and aimsExtra‐intestinal manifestations (EIMs) are a common complication of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), affecting up to half of the patients. Despite their high prevalence, information on standardised definitions, diagnostic strategies, and treatment targets is limited.MethodsAs a starting point for a national EIM study network, an interdisciplinary expert panel of 12 gastroenterologists, 4 rheumatologists, 3 ophthalmologists, 6 dermatologists, and 4 patient representatives was assembled. Modified Delphi consensus methodology was used. Fifty‐four candidate items were derived from the literature review and expert opinion focusing on five major EIMs (erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis) were rated in three voting rounds.ResultsFor use in a clinical practice setting and as part of the creation of a prospective registry of patients with EIMs, the panel developed definitions for erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis; identified the appropriate and optimal subspecialists to diagnose and manage each; provided methods to monitor disease course; offered guidance regarding monitoring intervals; and defined resolution and recurrence.ConclusionsConsensus criteria for appropriate and optimal means of diagnosing and monitoring five EIMs have been developed as a starting point to inform clinical practice and future trial design. Key findings include straightforward diagnostic criteria, guidance regarding who can appropriately and optimally diagnose each, and monitoring options that include patient and physician‐reported outcomes. These findings will be used in a national multicenter study network to optimise the management of EIMs.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives. METHODS: A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis. RESULTS: Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored. DISCUSSION: Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.

Abstract Background The level of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) training in general gastroenterology fellowship is often insufficient to prepare trainees to deliver advanced IBD care in practice. Advanced IBD fellowships have been developed to fill this training gap, but there is no established curriculum, and significant variability exists across programs. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are practical and realistic objectives that define essential tasks of a specialty that physicians should master to be competent during independent practice. The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation (Foundation) established a task force to develop and appraise EPAs for advanced IBD fellowship. Methods Entrustable professional activities were developed using a multistep approach in a similar manner to other specialties. Initial EPAs identified via focus groups were evaluated, critiqued, and changed using an iterative model of feedback. The final EPAs were selected after the task force conducted a 3-phase modified Delphi method consisting of 2 sequential rounds of web-based voting and an in-person consensus meeting. Results Ten EPAs for advanced IBD fellowship were established including detailed descriptions with the associated knowledge, skills, and attitudes for each that can serve as curricular milestones. Conclusion Ten EPAs describing the core work of an advanced IBD fellowship–trained physician have been established by a multisociety task force. Creating EPAs for an advanced curriculum comes with unique challenges, particularly the need to prevent duplication of prior training competencies while demonstrating the potential for unique milestones.