Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy; Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano Milan, Italy
Dr. Ferdinando D'Amico
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy; Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano Milan, Italy
Growing evidence shows that ulcerative colitis (UC) is a progressive disease similar to Crohn’s disease (CD). The UC-related burden is often underestimated by physicians and a standard step-up therapeutic approach is preferred. However, in many patients with UC the disease activity is not adequately controlled by current management, leading to poor long-term prognosis. Data from both randomized controlled trials and real-world studies support early intervention in CD in order to prevent disease progression and irreversible bowel damage. Similarly, an early disease intervention during the so-called “window of opportunity” could lead to better outcomes in UC. Here, we summarize the literature evidence on early intervention in patients with UC, highlighting strengths and limitations of this approach.
The impact of COVID-19 on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients under pharmacological immunosuppression is still not clearly understood. We investigated the incidence of COVID-19 and the impact of immunosuppression and containment measures on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large IBD cohort, from a multicenter cohort from 21st of February to 30th of June, 2020. Ninety-seven patients with IBD (43 UC, 53 CD, one unclassified IBD) and concomitant COVID-19 over a total of 23,879 patients with IBD were enrolled in the study. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IBD vs. the general population was 0.406% and 0.402% cases, respectively. Twenty-three patients (24%) were hospitalized, 21 (22%) had pneumonia, four (4%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, and one patient died. Lethality in our cohort was 1% compared to 9% in the general population. At multivariable analysis, age > 65 years was associated with increased risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 11.6, 95% CI 2.18–62.60; OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.10–23.86, respectively), treatment with corticosteroids increased the risk of hospitalization (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.48–40.05), whereas monoclonal antibodies were associated with reduced risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04–0.52; OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.10–0.90, respectively). The risk of COVID-19 in patients with IBD is similar to the general population. National lockdown was effective in preventing infection in our cohort. Advanced age and treatment with corticosteroids impacted negatively on the outcome of COVID-19, whereas monoclonal antibodies did not seem to have a detrimental effect.
Mesalamine (5-ASA) is the mainstay therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, non-adherence to therapy and practice variability among gastroenterologists represent long-standing barriers, leading to poor outcomes. Additionally, targets to treat in UC are increasingly evolving from focusing on clinical remission to achieving endoscopic and histological healing. To date, systemic steroids are still recommended in non-responders to 5-ASA, despite their well-known side effects. Importantly, with the advent of new therapeutic options such as oral corticosteroids with topical activity (e.g., budesonide multimatrix system (MMX)), biologics, and small molecules, some issues need to be addressed for the optimal management of these patients in daily clinical practice. The specific positioning of these drugs in patients with mild-to-moderate disease remains unclear. This review aims to identify current challenges in clinical practice and to provide physicians with key strategies to optimize treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate UC, and ultimately achieve more ambitious therapeutic goals.
Bowel ultrasound (BUS) is a non-invasive and accurate technique for assessing activity, extension of disease, and complications in inflammatory bowel diseases. The main advantages of BUS are its safety, reproducibility, and low costs. Ancillary technologies of BUS (i.e., color Doppler and wave elastography) could broaden the diagnostic power of BUS, allowing one to distinguish between inflammation and fibrosis. Considering the costs and invasiveness of colonoscopy and magnetic resonance, BUS appears as a fast, safe, and accurate technique. The objective measures of disease allow one to make clinical decisions, such as optimization, switch, or swap of therapy. Previous studies reported a sensitivity and a specificity of more than 90% compared to endoscopy and magnetic resonance. Lastly, transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) is a promising approach for the evaluation of perianal disease in Crohn’s disease (CD) and disease activity in patients with ulcerative proctitis or pouchitis. Bowel ultrasound is being incorporated in the algorithm of managing inflammatory bowel diseases. Transmural healing evaluated through ultrasonography is emerging as a complementary target for disease treatment. In this review, we aimed to summarize and discuss the current evidence on BUS in the management of inflammatory bowel diseases and to address the challenges of a full validation of this technique.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is assuming an increasingly important and central role in several medical fields. Its application in endoscopy provides a powerful tool supporting human experiences in the detection, characterization, and classification of gastrointestinal lesions. Lately, the potential of AI technology has been emerging in the field of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), where the current cornerstone is the treat-to-target strategy. A sensible and specific tool able to overcome human limitations, such as AI, could represent a great ally and guide precision medicine decisions. Here we reviewed the available literature on the endoscopic applications of AI in order to properly describe the current state-of-the-art and identify the research gaps in IBD at the dawn of 2022.