Vaughn, Byron P.

Abstract Ileostomy creation is common among patients with colorectal cancer, diverticulitis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Surgical removal or diversion of the colon can result in nutrition complications, most notably dehydration—a leading cause of hospital readmission—and increased risk of kidney injury. Existing studies on fluid and electrolyte management after ileostomy largely focus on short bowel syndrome or high‐output stomas, overlooking the physiological implications of ileostomy creation, even in patients with normal output. Given the absence of standardized oral rehydration protocols and limited interventional data, a scoping review was conducted to map the current evidence on oral rehydration solutions for postoperative fluid and electrolyte management in adults without short bowel syndrome or high‐output stoma. Comprehensive searches across five databases identified 5738 articles, of which 6 met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies examined adults with ileostomy for any standard indication in which oral rehydration solution use was a study objective. The included studies were methodologically heterogeneous, encompassing randomized controlled, crossover, double‐blinded comparator, retrospective cohort, and qualitative designs. Collectively, available evidence supports a pivotal role for oral rehydration solutions in both short‐term and long‐term management after ileostomy, improving hydration and reducing complications. This review highlights the need for standardized, evidence‐based oral rehydration regimens and underscores opportunities to reduce postoperative morbidity, kidney injury, and hospital readmissions while optimizing long‐term outcomes in this growing patient population.

Abstract Background Given the complexity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, utilization of multidisciplinary teams is recommended to optimize outcomes. There is a growing recognition that clinical pharmacists should be an integral part of this care model. We sought to define the roles of IBD clinical pharmacists in the United States. Methods A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 12 gastroenterologists and clinical pharmacists practicing in IBD clinics was assembled. We used the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method, with a total of 281 statements generated based on a systematic literature review and expert opinion. Each statement was anonymously rated as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate in 2 rounds of voting. Results The number of publications evaluating the clinical pharmacists’ roles in IBD is limited, primarily focusing on thiopurine initiation and monitoring, medication adherence, and switching to biosimilars. Medication education; medication initiation and monitoring; therapeutic drug monitoring; biosimilar management; health maintenance review; and transitions of care were deemed by the panel to be appropriate roles for IBD clinical pharmacists. In considering real-world settings, IBD clinical pharmacists should practice clinically under a predefined scope and primarily focus on complex treatments (eg, immunomodulators, biologics, and small molecules). Clinical pharmacists should also be included in practice settings with IBD specialized physicians. Additionally, clinical pharmacists caring for patients with IBD should be residency trained and board certified. Conclusions This consensus defines IBD clinical pharmacists’ roles and provides a framework for embedded clinical pharmacists in IBD care.