Horst, Sara

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: The American College of Gastroenterology assembled a multidisciplinary task force to evaluate the current state and future direction of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy leading to the development of consensus-based recommendations for responsible AI integration in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 32 subject-matter experts and 12 industry partners, representing diverse practice settings and expertise, conducted subgroup literature reviews across 5 key areas (endoscopy, practice management clinical applications, training and education, inflammatory bowel disease and liver disease, ethics and equity). Draft statements were developed and rated on a 5-point Likert scale using a modified Delphi process. A consensus was set at ≥70% combined agreement. Nonconsensus items were revised and revoted electronically. RESULTS: A total of 43 statements, 40 (93%) reached consensus in round 1 and the remaining 3 achieved consensus after round 2. Evidence supports computer-aided detection improving adenoma detection rate and miss rate in controlled studies, with mixed real-world impact and insufficient long-term outcomes (e.g., interval colon cancer rate). Recommendations emphasize thorough validation and reduction of bias by heterogeneous Data sets. Outside endoscopy, ambient AI scribes, natural language processing (NLP)-enabled coding, workflow optimization, and previous authorization support show potential. Training recommendations endorse a structured AI curriculum while preserving independent procedural competence to avoid deskilling. In inflammatory bowel disease and hepatology, AI could help improve diagnostic accuracy, help predict risk of disease progression, and help guide therapy. Equity, governance, and reimbursement statements call for chain-of-custody data protections, specialty-society oversight, and payment models that reward quality and cost reduction. DISCUSSION: This consensus outlines how AI can augment rather than replace clinical expertise while promoting safety, transparency, interoperability, and equity. Priorities include pragmatic and prospective trials, multi-institutional data-sharing consortia, bias mitigation, and workforce training to enable trustworthy and clinically impactful AI adoption in gastroenterology, liver, and endoscopy care.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a growing source of burden for clinicians treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: We conducted an EHR survey study targeting IBD clinicians at leading IBD programs throughout the United States. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 65 IBD clinicians, with 46 responses (70.8%) collected, 41 (89%) were physicians. All clinicians (100%) believe there are opportunities for EHR improvement. Nineteen clinicians (41.3%) felt that their EHR does not enhance IBD patient care. DISCUSSION: This is the first IBD program survey in the United States showing significant dissatisfaction and opportunity for EHR enhancements to improve patient care.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–associated peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA) decreases quality of life and remains poorly understood. Given the prevalence of this condition and its negative impact, it is surprising that evidence-based disease definitions and diagnostic strategies are lacking. This systematic review summarizes available data to facilitate development and validation of diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, and imaging indices specific to this condition. Methods A literature search was conducted. Consensus or classification criteria, case series, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials related to diagnosis were included. Results A total of 44 studies reporting data on approximately 1500 patients with pSpA were eligible for analysis. Data quality across studies was only graded as fair to good. Due to large heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. The majority of studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes and a physical examination. A total of 13 studies proposed or validated screening tools, consensus, classification, or consensus criteria. A total of 28 studies assessed the role of laboratory tests, none of which were considered sufficiently accurate for use in diagnosis. A total of 17 studies assessed the role of imaging, with the available literature insufficient to fully endorse any imaging modality as a robust diagnostic tool. Conclusions This review highlights existing inconsistency and lack of a clear diagnostic approach for IBD-associated pSpA. Given the absence of an evidence-based approach, a combination of existing criteria and physician assessment should be utilized. To address this issue comprehensively, our future efforts will be directed toward pursuit of a multidisciplinary approach aimed at standardizing evaluation and diagnosis of IBD-associated pSpA.