Raffals, Laura E.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Pouchitis and Crohn's-like disease of the pouch (CLDP) are common in patients who undergo ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. We conducted separate systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of available interventions to prevent and treat pouchitis and CLDP. METHODS: Through systematic literature reviews, we identified studies that evaluated the effectiveness of probiotics, antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylates, nonsystemic oral corticosteroids, and advanced therapies for prevention and treatment of pouchitis and CLDP for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were occurrence of pouchitis for pouchitis prevention and clinical response for pouchitis and CLDP treatment. We estimated the relative effectiveness of these interventions using the existing placebo response rates or hypothetical spontaneous improvement rates derived from clinical trials of pouchitis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease. RESULTS: Probiotics were effective for primary (relative risk [RR] 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05–0.62) and secondary prevention (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.09–0.34) of pouchitis. Antibiotics were effective for treatment of acute and chronic pouchitis (12 cohorts; RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.34–2.01; response rate 65%; 95% CI 52–75) with ciprofloxacin and metronidazole-based regimens being more effective than rifaximin. Advanced therapies were effective for treatment of chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (31 cohorts; RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.28–2.56; response rate 50%; 95% CI 43–57) and CLDP (10 cohorts; RR 2.49; 95% CI 1.87–3.73; response rate 74%; 95% CI 68–79) without significant difference between classes. DISCUSSION: Multiple medical interventions are effective for prevention and treatment of pouchitis and CLDP. Given the overall low quality of data, further research is needed to confirm these findings.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPatients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are hospitalised for acute severe flares represent a high‐risk orphan population.AimTo provide guidance for clinical trial design methodology in these patients.MethodsWe created a multi‐centre consortium to design and conduct a clinical trial for a novel therapeutic intervention (hyperbaric oxygen therapy) in patients with UC hospitalised for moderate–severe flares. During planning, we identified and addressed specific gaps for inclusion/exclusion criteria; disease activity measures; pragmatic trial design considerations within care pathways for hospitalised patients; standardisation of care delivery; primary and secondary outcomes; and sample size and statistical analysis approaches.ResultsThe Truelove‐Witt criteria should not be used in isolation. Endoscopy is critical for defining eligible populations. Patient‐reported outcomes should include rectal bleeding and stool frequency, with secondary measurement of urgency and nocturnal bowel movements. Trial design needs to be tailored to care pathways, with early intervention focused on replacing and/or optimising responsiveness to steroids and later interventions focused on testing novel rescue agents or strategies. The PRECIS‐2 framework offers a means of tailoring to local populations. We provide standardisation of baseline testing, venous thromboprophylaxis, steroid dosing, discharge criteria and post‐discharge follow‐up to avoid confounding by usual care variability. Statistical considerations are provided given the small clinical trial nature of this population.ConclusionWe provide an outline for framework decisions made for the hyperbaric oxygen trial in patients hospitalised for UC flares. Future research should focus on the remaining gaps identified.

Abstract Background Perianal draining tunnels in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and perianal fistulizing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) present diagnostic and management dilemmas. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with perianal disease evaluated at Mayo Clinic from January 1, 1998, through July 31, 2021. Patients' demographic and clinical data were extracted, and 28 clinical features were collected. After experimenting with several machine learning techniques, random forests were used to select the 15 most important clinical features to construct the diagnostic prediction model to distinguish perianal HS from fistulizing perianal IBD. Results A total of 263 patients were included (98 with HS, 100 with IBD, and 65 with both IBD and HS). Patients with HS had a higher mean body mass index, a higher smoking rate, and more commonly showed cutaneous manifestations of tunnels and comedones, while fistulas, abscesses, induration, anal tags, ulcers, and anal fissures were more common in patients with IBD. In addition to having lesions in the perianal area, patients with IBD often had lesions in the buttocks and perineum, while those with HS had additional lesions in the axillae and groin. Among the statistically significant features, the 15 most important were identified by random forest: fistula , tunnel , digestive symptom , knife‐cut ulcer , perineum , body mass index , age , axilla , abscess , tags , smoking , groin , genital cutaneous edema , erythema , and bilateral/unilateral . Conclusions The results of this study may help differentiate perianal lesions, especially perineal HS and fistulizing perineal IBD, and provide promise for a better therapeutic outcome.

Within the Department of Medicine (DOM) in a large tertiary academic health care facility in midwestern United States, we have developed an educational offering that incorporates an academic writing program (AWP) blending the approaches of a writing accountability work group, a writing workshop, and didactic writing courses. The purpose of this AWP was to assist healthcare professionals (HCP) with their manuscript writing skills to enhance academic productivity. We report our evolving journey and experiences with this AWP. To date, it has been offered 3 times to 25 HCP over the course of 3 years. Among those responding to a post program follow up survey (N = 11), 8 (73%) indicated that they completed the project that they were working on during the AWP and went on to publish the manuscript (N = 5) or were in the process of submission (N = 2). Some indicated they has also gone on to present posters (N = 2) or were in the process of presenting posters (N = 2) or had received grants (N = 1) or were awaiting grant notice (N = 1). A number of attendees have continued to use and share the tools presented during the AWP. Based on input from attendees and increased requests for this AWP, this educational program has been deemed a success and expansion of this program is currently underway.