The WHO has recognised iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) as the most common nutritional deficiency in the world, with 30% of the population being affected with this condition. Although the most common causes of IDA are gastrointestinal bleeding and menstruation in women, decreased dietary iron and decreased iron absorption are also culpable causes. Patients with IDA should be treated with the aim of replenishing iron stores and returning the haemoglobin to a normal level. This has shown to improve quality of life, morbidity, prognosis in chronic disease and outcomes in pregnancy. Iron deficiency occurs in many chronic inflammatory conditions, including congestive cardiac failure, chronic kidney disease and inflammatory bowel disease. This article will provide an updated overview on diagnosis and management of IDA in patients with chronic conditions, preoperative and in pregnancy. We will discuss the benefits and limitations of oral versus intravenous iron replacement in each cohort, with an overview on cost analysis between the different iron formulations currently on the market.

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.

Summary: Background and Aims: This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine whether the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti‐tumour necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) therapy results in improved rates of clinical and endoscopic remission, surgery, corticosteroid‐free remission and hospitalisation.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE classic, PubMed, Cochrane central databases register of controlled trials and Cochrane Specialised Trials Register were searched between 01 Janurary 1946 and 08 April 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective observational studies were included, comparing TDM to standard of care (SOC) or reactive vs proactive TDM. Results were reported as pooled relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).Results: Twenty‐six studies, including 9 RCTs, were included. Compared to SOC, proactive TDM was associated with a significantly decreased risk of treatment failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48–0.85 p<0.01), and a non‐significant decrease in need for surgery (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25–1.02) and hospitalisation (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40–1.00). Furthermore compared to SOC, Proactive TDM was associated with higher rates of endoscopic remission (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93–1.53) and clinical remission (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97–1.18). Compared to reactive TDM, proactive TDM was associated with significant decreased risk of treatment failure (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21 = 0.98, p = 0.04) and significant reduction in hospitalisation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21–0.54, p < 0.01).Conclusions: Compared to SOC, proactive TDM was associated with significant benefit in reducing treatment failure. Compared to reactive TDM, proactive TDM led to a significant reduction in hospitalisation and treatment failure. More studies with larger RCTs and standardised assays are needed to substantiate these results and validate the cost‐effectiveness of TDM.

Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory, relapsing-remitting, and progressive gastrointestinal disorder with an often-negative impact on the physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. Over the past two decades, the medical compendium for the treatment of Crohn’s disease has increased significantly, enabling treatment beyond symptoms. Indeed, early and timely use of effective medical therapy has been reflected by improved outcomes with reduction in surgery and ability to achieve clinical and endoscopic remission, reduce corticosteroid dependance, and prevent long-term complications in more patients. In this review, we discuss the key milestones in the medical management of Crohn’s disease.

The most common complication seen in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is iron deficiency anaemia (IDA). Symptoms such as chronic fatigue can be as debilitating to IBD patients as pathological symptoms of abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Recognising and correcting anaemia may be as important as managing IBD symptoms and improving overall quality of life. Thus, iron replacement should be commenced the moment IDA is identified. Although intravenous iron is now considered standard treatment for IBD patients in Europe, oral iron still appears to be the preferred option. Advantages of oral iron include greater availability, lower costs and ease of applicability. However, its multitude of side effects, impact on the microbiome and further exacerbating IBD activity can have consequences on patient compliance. The newer oral iron formulations show promising safety and efficacy data with a good side effect profile. Intravenous iron formulations bypass the gastrointestinal tract absorption thereby leading to less side effects. Multiple studies have shown its superiority compared to oral formulations although its risk for hypersensitivity reactions continue to lead to clinician hesitancy in prescribing this formulation. This article provides an updated review on diagnosis and management of IDA in IBD patients, discussing the newer oral and intravenous formulations.

An estimated 2.5–3 million individuals (0.4%) in Europe are affected by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Whilst incidence rates for IBD are stabilising across Europe, the prevalence is rising and subsequently resulting in a significant cost to the healthcare system of an estimated 4.6–5.6 billion euros per year. Hospitalisation and surgical resection rates are generally on a downward trend, which is contrary to the rising cost of novel medication. This signifies a large part of healthcare cost and burden. Despite publicly funded healthcare systems in most European countries, there is still wide variation in how patients receive and/or pay for biologic medication. This review will provide an overview and discuss the different healthcare systems within Western Europe and the barriers that affect overall management of a changing IBD landscape, including differences to hospitalisation and surgical rates, access to medication and clinical trial participation and recruitment. This review will also discuss the importance of standardising IBD management to attain high-quality care for all patients with IBD.