In response to recent advancements in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) has commissioned the BSG IBD section to update its guidelines, last revised in 2019. These updated guidelines aim to complement the IBD standards and promote the use of the national primary care diagnostic pathway for lower gastrointestinal symptoms to enhance diagnostic accuracy and timeliness. Formulated through a systematic and transparent process, this document reflects a consensus of best practices based on current evidence. The guideline, while developed primarily for the UK, is structured to support IBD management internationally. It is endorsed by the BSG executive board and CSSC without external commercial funding, with involvement primarily supported through professional roles in public institutions and the National Health Service (NHS). Methodological revisions since the prior guidelines have enhanced rigor in technical review and development, with methodology details published independently following peer review. In developing the recommendations, 89 clinical experts and stakeholders participated in an online survey, identifying primary outcomes, such as clinical and endoscopic remission, as well as adverse event metrics, all stratified by clinically relevant effect sizes. These guidelines are intended to support clinical decision-making but are not prescriptive, recognizing that individual clinical scenarios may warrant tailored approaches. Further research may inform future revisions as new evidence emerges.

The American Journal of Gastroenterology is published by Nature Publishing Group (NPG) on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). Ranked the #1 clinical journal covering gastroenterology and hepatology*, The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) provides practical and professional support for clinicians dealing with the gastroenterological disorders seen most often in patients. Published with practicing clinicians in mind, the journal aims to be easily accessible, organizing its content by topic, both online and in print. www.amjgastro.com, *2007 Journal Citation Report (Thomson Reuters, 2008)

Temporal changes for intestinal resections for Crohn’s disease (CD) are controversial. We validated administrative database codes for CD diagnosis and surgery in hospitalized patients and then evaluated temporal trends in CD surgical resection rates. First, we validated International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10-CM coding for CD diagnosis in hospitalized patients and Canadian Classification of Health Intervention coding for surgical resections. Second, we used these validated codes to conduct population-based surveillance between fiscal years 2002 and 2010 to identify adult CD patients undergoing intestinal resection (n=981). Annual surgical rate was calculated by dividing incident surgeries by estimated CD prevalence. Time trend analysis was performed and annual percent change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in surgical resection rates were calculated using a generalized linear model assuming a Poisson distribution. In the validation cohort, 101/104 (97.1%) patients undergoing surgery and 191/200 (95.5%) patients admitted without surgery were confirmed to have CD on chart review. Among the 116 administrative database codes for surgical resection, 97.4% were confirmed intestinal resections on chart review. From 2002 to 2010, the overall CD surgical resection rate was 3.8 resections per 100 person-years. During the study period, rate of surgery decreased by 3.5% per year (95% CI: −1.1%, −5.8%), driven by decreasing emergent operations (−10.1% per year (95% CI: −13.4%, −6.7%)) whereas elective surgeries increased by 3.7% per year (95% CI: 0.1%, 7.3%). Overall surgical resection rates in CD are decreasing, but a paradigm shift has occurred whereby elective operations are now more commonly performed than emergent surgeries.

Summary: Background: Biological therapy is currently widely used to treat IBD. Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab are currently licensed anti‐TNF therapies. Biosimilar anti‐TNF monoclonal antibodies are increasingly used. Anti‐TNF therapies are widely used and their adverse effects are well characterised, and may cause significant morbidity and mortality in a small proportion of exposed patients. Gastroenterologists need to understand the mechanisms for these effects, recognise these swiftly and manage such events appropriately.Aim: To cover the range of potential adverse reactions as a result of biologic therapy and specifically management of these events.Methods: A Medline and Pubmed search was undertaken. Search terms included were “anti‐TNF,” “infliximab” or “adalimumab” or “golimumab” combined with the keywords “ulcerative colitis” or “Crohn's disease” or “inflammatory bowel disease” and then narrowed to articles containing the keywords “complications,” “side effects” or “adverse events” or “safety profile.” International guidelines were also reviewed where relevant.Results: Adverse events discussed in this review include infusion reactions, blood disorders and infections (including bacterial, viral, fungal and opportunistic infections) as well as autoimmune, dermatological disorders, cardiac and neurological conditions. Malignancies including solid organ, haematological and those linked to viral disease are discussed.Conclusions: Anti‐TNF therapy has wide‐ranging effects on the immune system resulting in a spectrum of potential adverse events in a small proportion of patients. Research advances are improving the understanding, recognition and management of these adverse events.

Background and Aims: This study compares the effectiveness of different biologic therapies and sequences in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] using real-world data from a large cohort with long exposure. Methods: Demographic, disease, treatment, and outcome data were retrieved for patients in the UK IBD BioResource. Effectiveness of treatment was based on persistence free of discontinuation or failure, analysed by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups. Results: In total, 13 222 evaluable patients received at least one biologic. In ulcerative colitis [UC] first-line vedolizumab [VDZ] demonstrated superior effectiveness over 5 years compared to anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents [p = 0.006]. VDZ was superior to both infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] after ADA and IFX failure respectively [p < 0.001 and p < 0.001]. Anti-TNF therapy showed similar effectiveness when used as first-line treatment, or after failure of VDZ. In Crohn’s disease [CD] we found significant differences between first-line treatments over 10 years [p = 0.045], with superior effectiveness of IFX compared to ADA in perianal CD. Non-anti-TNF biologics were superior to a second anti-TNF after first-line anti-TNF failure in CD [p = 0.035]. Patients with UC or CD experiencing TNF failure due to delayed loss of response or intolerance had superior outcomes when switching to a non-anti-TNF biologic, rather than a second anti-TNF. Conclusions: We provide real-world evidence to guide biologic selection and sequencing in a range of common scenarios. Our findings challenge current guidelines regarding drug selection after loss of response to first anti-TNF treatment.