Citations

Abstract Background The expanding use of biologic and small-molecule therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) has raised concerns regarding perioperative safety. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare short-term postoperative complications associated with preoperative exposure to these agents in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library through September 15, 2025, for cohort studies of adults with UC who were exposed to biologic or small-molecule therapy within 12 weeks prior to surgery. Interventions included biologic therapy, small-molecule therapy, and no biologic or small-molecule therapy (control). The primary outcome was overall postoperative complications at 30 and 90 days. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) was assessed as a key secondary outcome. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Sixteen retrospective cohort studies involving 3235 patients were included. At 30 days, ustekinumab and tofacitinib were associated with lower overall postoperative complication rates than control (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.96; and RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.96, respectively). Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy was associated with higher complication rates compared with vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib at 30 days (RR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.00-1.63; RR: 3.67; 95% CI: 1.12-12.03; and RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.14-2.27, respectively). At 90 days, anti-TNF therapy was associated with higher complication rates than control (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40), although the 90-day analysis was based on limited data. VTE rates were similar across treatments at both time points. Conclusion Preoperative ustekinumab and tofacitinib were associated with fewer 30-day postoperative complications than control or anti-TNF therapy, while vedolizumab was associated with fewer complications than anti-TNF therapy. At 90 days, anti-TNF therapy was associated with higher complication rates compared with control. These findings, particularly at 90 days based on limited data, should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation in well-designed prospective studies with rigorous adjustment for confounding factors.

INTRODUCTION: Normalized quality of life represents a crucial long-term treatment goal in Crohn's disease (CD). We evaluated the effect of risankizumab (RZB) vs ustekinumab (UST) on achieving clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes in the phase 3b head-to-head SEQUENCE study. METHODS: Adults with moderate-to-severe CD whose previous anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy failed were randomized 1:1 to recommended induction and maintenance doses of RZB or UST. The proportion of patients who achieved Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) response, IBDQ remission, and improvements in 36-item short-form health survey physical and mental component summary (physical component summary and mental component summary, respectively) scores was evaluated at weeks 24 and 48. The proportion of patients experiencing improvement in select symptoms of the IBDQ was reported. RESULTS: Analysis included 520 patients (RZB: N = 255; UST: N = 265). At week 24, greater proportions(all P ≤ .01) of RZB- vs UST-treated patients achieved IBDQ response (75.3% vs 64.2%), IBDQ remission (52.5% vs 30.9%), and improvements in 36-item short-form health survey physical component summary (65.9% vs 53.2%). At 24 weeks, lower proportions (all P ≤ .05) of RZB- vs UST-treated patients experienced fatigue (51.4% vs 69.1%), difficulty sleeping (37.7% vs 54.3%), depression (34.1% vs 42.6%), anxiety (34.1% vs 49.8%), and bowel urgency (27.1% vs 40.0%) all of the time to some of the time. Improvements were sustained through week 48. DISCUSSION: RZB was more effective than UST in achieving sustained clinically meaningful patient-reported outcome improvements including IBDQ response and remission, and in reducing frequency of select symptoms of the IBDQ through week 48 among patients with moderate-to-severe CD.

Abstract Background & Aims Central reading of endoscopy and histopathology is the current standard for disease activity assessment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical trials but is limited by interreader and intrareader variability, operational delays, and cost. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer the potential to improve accuracy, efficiency, and reproducibility. The International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD) developed consensus statements on AI/ML use for endoscopic and histologic endpoint assessment in IBD trials. Methods As part of the IOIBD endpoints cluster initiative, a narrative, evidence-informed review with literature searches of Medline and Embase (January 2018-February 2025) identified studies applying AI/ML to endoscopy or histology in IBD. Relevant evidence informed 36 survey statements formulated by a steering committee. Seventy-two IOIBD members were invited to vote online; consensus required ≥80% agreement (score: 7-10 on a 10-point scale). Results Forty-five members completed the survey. Consensus was reached for 28 statements related to endoscopy, pathology, and trial design. Experts agreed that AI-based central reading could improve diagnostic accuracy, expedite processes, reduce costs, and enhance reproducibility. Combining human and AI assessments was favored over AI replacement. The key limitations identified included insufficient validation, generalizability concerns, and dependence on human-annotated training datasets. Conclusions This IOIBD consensus supports the integration of AI/ML into central reading for IBD clinical trials to improve objectivity, efficiency, and consistency, while maintaining human oversight. Further research should address validation, regulatory frameworks, and multimodal integration to enable broader adoption in both trials and clinical practice.