Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are chronic conditions that primarily affect the gastrointestinal tract, with a complex pathogenesis; they are characterized by a significant heterogeneity of clinical presentations and of inflammatory pathways that sustain intestinal damage. After the introduction of the first biological therapies, the pipeline of therapies for IBD has been constantly expanding, and a significant number of new molecules is expected in the next few years. Evidence from clinical trials and real-life experiences has taught us that up to 40% of patients do not respond to a specific drug. Unfortunately, to date, clinicians lack a valid tool that can predict each patient’s response to therapies and that could help them in choosing what drug to administer. Several candidate biomarkers have been investigated so far, with conflicting results: clinical, genetic, immunological, pharmacokinetic and microbial markers have been tested, but no ideal marker has been identified so far. Based on recent evidence, multiparametric models seemingly hold the greatest potential for predicting response to therapy. In this narrative review, we aim to summarize the current knowledge on predictors and early markers of response to biological therapies in IBD.

Personalized Medicine (PM) has shifted the traditional top-down approach to medicine based on the identification of single etiological factors to explain diseases, which was not suitable for explaining complex conditions. The concept of PM assumes several interpretations in the literature, with particular regards to Genetic and Genomic Medicine. Despite the fact that some disease-modifying genes affect disease expression and progression, many complex conditions cannot be understood through only this lens, especially when other lifestyle factors can play a crucial role (such as the environment, emotions, nutrition, etc.). Personalizing clinical phenotyping becomes a challenge when different pathophysiological mechanisms underlie the same manifestation. Brain disorders, cardiovascular and gastroenterological diseases can be paradigmatic examples. Experiences on the field of Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli in Rome (a research hospital recognized by the Italian Ministry of Health as national leader in “Personalized Medicine” and “Innovative Biomedical Technologies”) could help understanding which techniques and tools are the most performing to develop potential clinical phenotypes personalization. The connection between practical experiences and scientific literature highlights how this potential can be reached towards Systems Medicine using Artificial Intelligence tools.

Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths worldwide, with chronic gastritis representing the main predisposing factor initiating the cascade of events leading to metaplasia and eventually progressing to cancer. A widely accepted classification distinguishes between autoimmune and environmental atrophic gastritis, mediated, respectively, by T cells promoting the destruction of the oxyntic mucosa, and chronic H. pylori infection, which has also been identified as the major risk factor for gastric cancer. The original dogma posits Th1 immunity as a main causal factor for developing gastritis and metaplasia. Recently, however, it has become evident that Th2 immune responses play a major role in the events causing chronic inflammation leading to tumorigenesis, and in this context, many different cell types and cytokines are involved. In particular, the activity of cytokines, such as IL-33 and IL-13, and cell types, such as mast cells, M2 macrophages and eosinophils, are intertwined in the process, promoting chronic gastritis-dependent and more diffuse metaplasia. Herein, we provide an overview of the critical events driving the pathology of this disease, focusing on the most recent findings regarding the importance of Th2 immunity in gastritis and gastric metaplasia.

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with a progressive course, potentially affecting the entire gastrointestinal tract from mouth to anus. Several studies have shown an increased risk of both intestinal and extra-intestinal cancer in patients with CD, due to long-standing transmural inflammation and damage accumulation. The similarity of symptoms among CD, its related complications and the de novo onset of gastrointestinal cancer raises difficulties in the differential diagnosis. In addition, once a cancer diagnosis in CD patients is made, selecting the appropriate treatment can be particularly challenging. Indeed, both surgical and oncological treatments are not always the same as that of the general population, due to the inflammatory context of the gastrointestinal tract and the potential exacerbation of gastrointestinal symptoms of patients with CD; moreover, the overlap of the neoplastic disease could lead to adjustments in the pharmacological treatment of the underlying CD, especially with regard to immunosuppressive drugs. For these reasons, a case-by-case analysis in a multidisciplinary approach is often appropriate for the best diagnostic and therapeutic evaluation of patients with CD after gastrointestinal cancer onset.

The drug pipeline for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has dramatically expanded over the last two decades, and it is expected to further grow in the upcoming years with the introduction of new agents with different mechanisms of action. However, such an increase of therapeutic options needs to be paralleled with an appropriate development of research to help physicians in the decision-making process when choosing which drug to prescribe. On the population level, comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to explore and identify relevant differences—in terms of both efficacy and safety outcomes—amongst different therapeutic regimens and/or strategies, in order to find the correct placement for each treatment in the therapeutic algorithm. CER revolves around three cornerstones: network meta-analyses, head-to-head trials and real-world studies, each of which has specific pros and cons, and can therefore offer answers to different questions. In this review, we aim to provide an overview on the methodological features specific to each of these research approaches, as well as to illustrate the main findings coming from CER on IBD target therapies (i.e., biologics and small molecules) and to discuss their appropriate interpretation.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has raised concerns in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), not only due to consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 itself but also as a possible cause of IBD relapse. The main objective of this study was to assess the role of SARS-CoV-2 in IBD clinical recurrence in a cohort of patients undergoing biological therapy. Second, we evaluated the difference in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels between the start and end of the follow-up period (ΔCRP) and the rate of biological therapy discontinuation. Patients with IBD positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with non-infected patients. IBD recurrence was defined as the need for intensification of current therapy. We enrolled 95 IBD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 190 non-infected patients. During follow-up, 11 of 95 (11.6%) SARS-CoV-2-infected patients experienced disease recurrence compared to 21 of 190 (11.3%) in the control group (p = 0.894). Forty-six (48.4%) SARS-CoV-2-infected patients discontinued biological therapy versus seven (3.7%) in the control group (p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, biological agent discontinuation (p = 0.033) and ΔCRP (p = 0.017), but not SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.298), were associated with IBD recurrence. SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased IBD recurrence rates in this cohort of patients treated with biological agents.