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.

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.