Scott, Frank I.

Abstract Background Complications such as intermittent pouchitis (IP) and chronic inflammatory disorders of the pouch (CP) are common after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), particularly among patients with both ulcerative colitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). There are no standardized approaches for prophylaxis against these complications for patients with PSC undergoing IPAA. We compared outcomes among patients with PSC and IPAA who received antibiotic or immunosuppressive therapies to those who did not. Methods We designed a retrospective cohort study that included patients with ulcerative colitis and PSC from 7 tertiary care centers that underwent IPAA between 1994 and 2023. Patients were categorized on whether they received medications following IPAA that may provide primary prophylactic benefit, such as antibiotics, probiotics, immunomodulators, or biologic medications; and the proportion of patients developing IP and CP was evaluated. Results A total of 172 patients were included in the cohort, and 13 (7.6%) patients received antibiotics or immunosuppressant medications. Antibiotics and probiotics were the most common therapy (5 patients, 2.9%), followed by biologics, small-molecule inhibitors, immunomodulators, or mesalamine (all 1 patient, 0.6%). Compared to patients not receiving antibiotics or immunosuppression, patients receiving antibiotics or immunosuppression were significantly less likely to develop IP (69.2% vs 91.2%; P = .03; odds ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.80) and CP (23.1% vs 56.0%, P = 0.04; OR 0.24, 95% CI, 0.06-0.89). Conclusions In this retrospective cohort of patients with ulcerative colitis and PSC undergoing IPAA, usage of concomitant antibiotics or immunosuppression was low. However, use of concomitant antibiotics or immunosuppression may decrease the burden of inflammatory conditions of the pouch in these high-risk patients.

INTRODUCTION: Spondyloarthritis (SpA), the most common extraintestinal manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), is reported in up to 39% of patients with IBD. Despite this high prevalence, risk factors of developing SpA in patients with IBD are not well described. In this study, we aimed to determine the factors associated with SpA symptoms and their prevalence in an IBD cohort. METHODS: Two validated screening questionnaires for the detection of SpA in IBD (DETAIL = DETection of Arthritis in Inflammatory boweL diseases, IBIS-Q = IBD Identification of Spondyloarthritis Questionnaire) were administered to patients with IBD without a prior diagnosis of SpA in 6 US academic medical centers. Demographic data, IBD characteristics, and medication history were recorded. RESULTS: Screening questionnaires were completed by 588 patients (220 ulcerative colitis, 349 Crohn's disease, and 19 IBD-unclassified), with a median age of 40 years (interquartile range 30–53) and median disease duration of 12 years (interquartile range 6–22). The number of positive screens was 130 (22%) for DETAIL, 196 (33%) for IBIS-Q, and 204 (35%) for either DETAIL or IBIS-Q. Age, female sex, history of smoking, prior bowel surgery, and history of any biologic or targeted small molecule exposure were associated with a positive screen on univariate analysis. After multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41–2.93), older age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04), history of smoking (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.04–2.69), and history of any biologic or targeted small molecule exposure (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.34–3.84) were independently associated with positive screens. Higher number of biologic exposures was associated with higher risk of positive screens, with the highest risk seen with 3 or more exposures (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.75–6.03). DISCUSSION: A substantial number of patients with IBD screen positive for SpA symptoms, indicating a potentially high burden of undiagnosed illness. Factors associated with SpA symptoms include older age, female sex, and more severe disease (based on increased number of advanced therapies or prior surgery), whereas IBD phenotype does not independently increase the risk of a positive SpA screen. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and better characterize SpA in IBD.

ObjectiveSpondyloarthritis (SpA) is the most common extraintestinal manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The application of screening tools to detect SpA in patients with IBD may lead to earlier recognition of SpA and affect treatment decisions.MethodsA combination of two previously described SpA screening questionnaires, the Detection of Arthritis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (DETAIL) and IBD Identification of Spondyloarthritis Questionnaire (IBIS‐Q), was administered to consecutive patients with IBD attending IBD specialty clinics in six US academic medical centers. Demographic data, IBD, and rheumatology history were extracted by chart review.ResultsA total of 669 patients were analyzed. The median age was 40 years (interquartile range [IQR] 30–54) with a median disease duration of 12 years (IQR 6–22) and moderate to severe IBD based on medication exposure and history of bowel surgery. A total of 81 patients (12%) carried a diagnosis of an inflammatory rheumatic disease, whereas 75 (11%) had consulted a rheumatologist during the previous year. Using published cutoffs, 180 out of 669 patients (27%) screened positive with DETAIL, 266 (40%) with IBIS‐Q, and 275 (41%) with either questionnaire. Axial symptoms were more frequently reported than peripheral musculoskeletal complaints. Notably, 189 out of 275 (69%) screen‐positive patients had neither a documented inflammatory rheumatic disease diagnosis nor a visit with a rheumatologist within the past year.ConclusionA substantial proportion of patients with IBD have symptoms suggestive of SpA, and many of these may have undiagnosed SpA. The IBIS‐Q questionnaire appears to identify more potential SpA cases than DETAIL. Strategies are needed to prioritize rheumatology consultations for those patients with IBD who are most likely to benefit.

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.

Background/Aims: Barrett’s esophagus (BE), defined by the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) on histology, is thought to be the only identifiable precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Recent studies have suggested the possibility of an alternate, non-IM associated EAC that is a more aggressive form of EAC with worse survival. Among EAC patients, we aimed to compare survival of patients with and without IM at the time of diagnosis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with histologic confirmed EAC evaluated at a tertiary care center from 2013 to 2019. Cases were categorized according to the presence or absence of IM on histologic specimens (Group I—IM-EAC and Group II—non-IM-EAC). We compared demographic characteristics, clinical stage, therapy, and survival between the 2 groups using the Chi-square and ANOVA tests (for categorical and continuous variables, respectively). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the association of IM with overall survival, adjusting for sex, age at diagnosis, tumor location, histologic grade, and clinical stage. Results: A total of 475 patients were included in this analysis (mean age 64.8 years [SD 10.8], 89% white) and 109 (23.0%) had no evidence of IM. Compared with IM-EAC (Group I), individuals in the non-IM-EAC group were younger ( P = .01) and had a greater proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced disease (49.5 vs 20.2% for stage 4, P < .001). These patients were less likely to undergo endoscopic therapy alone (0.92% vs 29.78%, P < .001) or surgery alone (0 vs 9.84%, P = .001). On multivariable analysis, the presence of IM-EAC was associated with improved overall survival compared to non-IM-EAC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). Additional factors associated with poor survival was increasing stage of diagnosis (HR 6.49: 95% CI 3.77-11.15 for stage 4, HR 2.19: 95% CI 1.25-3.84 for stage 3, HR 2.04: 95% CI 0.98-4.25 for stage 2 compared to stage 1) and more advanced histologic stage (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.26-3.19) for poorly/undifferentiated compared to well differentiated). Conclusions: EAC without the presence of IM on histology was associated with worse survival compared to those with IM. Future prospective studies with detailed molecular sequencing are required to clarify if 2 separate phenotypes of EAC exist (IM-EAC and non-IM-EAC). If confirmed, this may have significant implications for screening and management strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Using the National Cancer Database, we assessed the relationship between facility overall esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) case volume and survival. METHODS: We categorized facilities into volume quintiles based on annual EAC patient volume and performed a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression between facility patient volume and survival. RESULTS: In a cohort of 116,675 patients, facilities with higher vs lower (≥25 vs 1–4 cases) annual EAC patient volume demonstrated improved survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.80. 95% confidence interval: 0.70–0.91). DISCUSSION: This robust volume-outcome effect calls for centralization of care for EAC patients at high annual case volume facilities.