Shah, Samir A.

Abstract Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), comprising Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic, inflammatory, immune mediated, relapsing-remitting conditions of the gastrointestinal tract with multidimensional and often negative effects on patients’ quality of life. The global burden of IBD is increasing and is forecast to affect 1% of the population in early industrialized nations over the next 10 years. Advances in our understanding of the causes and pathogenesis of IBD in the past three decades have translated into new treatments that modulate the immune inflammatory cascade. Modern goals of treatment are clinical remission through assessment of patient reported outcomes and deep remission defined as mucosal healing on colonoscopy or imaging. Achieving both clinical and deep remission affords patients a better long term prognosis and quality of life. This review summarizes the latest evidence on IBD diagnosis, staging, and prognosis, with a detailed focus on current treatments.

Abstract Background Since 2009, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialists have utilized “IBD LIVE,” a weekly live video conference with a global audience, to discuss the multidisciplinary management of their most challenging cases. While most cases presented were confirmed IBD, a substantial number were diseases that mimic IBD. We have categorized all IBD LIVE cases and identified “IBD-mimics” with consequent clinical management implications. Methods Cases have been recorded/archived since May 2018; we reviewed all 371 cases from May 2018–February 2023. IBD-mimics were analyzed/categorized according to their diagnostic and therapeutic workup. Results Confirmed IBD cases made up 82.5% (306/371; 193 Crohn’s disease, 107 ulcerative colitis, and 6 IBD-unclassified). Sixty-five (17.5%) cases were found to be mimics, most commonly medication-induced (n = 8) or vasculitis (n = 7). The evaluations that ultimately resulted in correct diagnosis included additional endoscopic biopsies (n = 13, 21%), surgical exploration/pathology (n = 10, 16.5%), biopsies from outside the GI tract (n = 10, 16.5%), genetic/laboratory testing (n = 8, 13%), extensive review of patient history (n = 8, 13%), imaging (n = 5, 8%), balloon enteroscopy (n = 5, 8%), and capsule endoscopy (n = 2, 3%). Twenty-five patients (25/65, 38%) were treated with biologics for presumed IBD, 5 of whom subsequently experienced adverse events requiring discontinuation of the biologic. Many patients were prescribed steroids, azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or methotrexate, and 3 were trialed on tofacitinib. Conclusions The diverse presentation of IBD and IBD-mimics necessitates periodic consideration of the differential diagnosis, and reassessment of treatment in presumed IBD patients without appropriate clinical response. The substantial differences and often conflicting treatment approaches to IBD versus IBD-mimics directly impact the quality and cost of patient care.

INTRODUCTION: Whether dye spray chromoendoscopy (DCE) adds value in surveillance colonoscopy with high-definition (HD) scopes remains controversial. This updated meta-analysis compares dysplasia detection using DCE and high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing HD-WLE and DCE in patients with IBD. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of patients with at least 1 dysplastic lesion detected by DCE vs HD-WLE. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the random-effects model, with I 2 > 60% indicating substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE). RESULTS: Six RCT involving 978 patients were analyzed (DCE = 479 vs HD-WLE = 499 patients). DCE detected significantly more patients with dysplasia than HD-WLE (18.8% vs 9.4%), OR 1.94 (95% CI 1.21–3.11, I 2 = 28%, P = 0.006, high CoE). This remained significant after excluding 2 RCT published as abstracts. A sensitivity analysis excluding a noninferiority RCT with a single experienced operator eliminated the results' heterogeneity, OR 2.46 (95% CI 1.56–3.90, I 2 = 0%). Although high-grade dysplasia detection was numerically higher in the DCE group (2.8% vs 1.1%), the difference was statistically insignificant, OR 2.21 (95% CI 0.64–7.62, I 2 = 0%, low CoE). DISCUSSION: Our updated meta-analysis supports DCE as a superior strategy in overall dysplasia detection in IBD, even with HD scopes. When expertise is available, DCE should be considered for surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high-risk IBD, with the acknowledgment that virtual chromoendoscopy shows equivalence in recent studies. Further multicenter trials with multiple endoscopists with varying expertise levels and longer-term outcome data showing a reduction in cancer or cancer-related death are needed.

INTRODUCTION: The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has compiled risk factors that may be predictive of disease complications in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the AGA risk factors for risk stratification in UC and CD. METHODS: We included participants of 2 cohorts: the Ocean State Crohn's and Colitis Area Registry cohort and the Mayo Clinic cohort. Baseline clinical risk factors were extracted according to the AGA pathway. Our primary end point was defined as follows: (i) any inflammatory bowel disease related–hospitalization, (ii) any inflammatory bowel disease–related bowel surgery, or (iii) any progression of disease. We analyzed the association of the number of AGA risk factors with our end point. Statistical multivariable modeling was performed with Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 412 patients with CD were included. Comparing ≥3 risk factors with 0–1 risk factor, we found a significantly increased risk of complications in both the Ocean State Crohn's and Colitis Area Registry cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.71–4.41) and Mayo Clinic cohort (HR 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.11–3.84). Diagnosis at younger age (HR 2.07), perianal disease (HR 1.99), and B2/B3 behavior (HR 1.92) were significantly associated with disease complications. We did not observe a consistent association between number of risk factors nor any specific individual risk factors and risk of disease complications in the 265 patients with UC included. DISCUSSION: We found a significant association between the number of AGA risk factors and the risk of disease complication in CD; this association was not significant in UC. The presence of ≥ 3 risk factors in CD leads to the highest risk of complications. The AGA care pathway is a useful tool to stratify patients who are at higher risk of disease complications in patients with CD.

Abstract Background Recommendations regarding signs and symptoms that should prompt referral of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to an IBD specialist for a consultation could serve to improve the quality of care for these patients. Our aim was to develop a consult care pathway consisting of clinical features related to IBD that should prompt appropriate consultation. Methods A scoping literature review was performed to identify clinical features that should prompt consultation with an IBD specialist. A panel of 11 experts was convened over 4 meetings to develop a consult care pathway using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Items identified via scoping review were ranked and were divided into major and minor criteria. Additionally, a literature and panel review was conducted assessing potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the consult care pathway. Results Of 43 features assessed, 13 were included in the care pathway as major criteria and 15 were included as minor criteria. Experts agreed that stratification into major criteria and minor criteria was appropriate and that 1 major or 2 or more minor criteria should be required to consider consultation. The greatest barrier to implementation was considered to be organizational resource allocation, while endorsements by national gastroenterology and general medicine societies were considered to be the strongest facilitator. Conclusions This novel referral care pathway identifies key criteria that could be used to triage patients with IBD who would benefit from IBD specialist consultation. Future research will be required to validate these findings and assess the impact of implementing this pathway in routine IBD-related care.