Fibrosis is an important feature of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), particularly Crohn's disease (CD), but its pathogenesis is poorly understood. To determine the postulated involvement of epithelial−mesenchymal transition (EMT) in the development of fibrosis in IBD, we analysed the expression profiles of the miR‐200 family which has been shown to induce EMT in experimental models and various human diseases. We also analysed the expression of Snail and Slug, postulated targets of the investigated microRNAs. Ten patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 10 patients with CD who underwent colon resection were included. From each, two tissue samples were chosen (one with the most severely and one with the least affected or normal mucosa) for analysis of microRNAs expression using real‐time polymerase chain reaction, and Snail and Slug expression using immunohistochemistry. We found significant down‐regulation of all investigated microRNAs in CD, and of three investigated microRNAs in UC, in comparison to the normal or the least affected mucosa. Comparing UC and CD, four microRNAs were significantly more down‐regulated in CD than in UC. Snail and Slug were expressed in the injured epithelium and occasionally in mesothelial cells and submesothelial fibroblasts. Our finding of down‐regulation of the miR‐200 family and up‐regulation of transcription repressors Snail and Slug supports the postulated role of EMT in the pathogenesis of fibrosis in IBD. The described expression patterns are consistent with the notion that fibrosis does not occur only in CD but also in UC, being much more severe in CD.

Background: Endoscopic-post-operative-recurrence [ePOR] in Crohn’s disease [CD] after ileocecal resection [ICR] is a major concern. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early prophylaxis with biologics and to compare anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] therapy to vedolizumab [VDZ] and ustekinumab [UST] in a real-world setting. Methods: A retrospective multicentre study of CD-adults after curative ICR on early prophylaxis was undertaken. ePOR was defined as a Rutgeerts score [RS] ≥ i2 or colonic-segmental-SES-CD ≥ 6. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors, and inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] was applied to compare the effectiveness between agents. Results: The study included 297 patients (53.9% males, age at diagnosis 24 years [19–32], age at ICR 34 years [26–43], 18.5% smokers, 27.6% biologic-naïve, 65.7% anti-TNF experienced, 28.6% two or more biologics and 17.2% previous surgery). Overall, 224, 39 and 34 patients received anti-TNF, VDZ or UST, respectively. Patients treated with VDZ and UST were more biologic experienced with higher rates of previous surgery. ePOR rates within 1 year were 41.8%. ePOR rates by treatment groups were: anti-TNF 40.2%, VDZ 33% and UST 61.8%. Risk factors for ePOR at 1 year were: past-infliximab (adjusted odds ratio [adj.OR] = 1.73 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.01–2.97]), past-adalimumab [adj.OR = 2.32 [95% CI: 1.35-4.01] and surgical aspects. After IPTW, the risk of ePOR within 1 year of VDZ vs anti-TNF or UST vs anti-TNF was comparable (OR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.25–1.19], OR = 1.86 [95% CI: 0.79–4.38]), respectively. Conclusion: Prevention of ePOR within 1 year after surgery was successful in ~60% of patients. Patients treated with VDZ or UST consisted of a more refractory group. After controlling for confounders, no differences in ePOR risk were seen between anti-TNF prophylaxis and other groups.

Several biologic treatments are available in addition to intravenous also in subcutaneous form for treatment of chronic diseases. Benefits of the subcutaneous application of drugs include self-administration by the patient, shorter time of application process with less infusion related adverse events and consequently lower healthcare costs. With appropriate education and support patients are able to administer their treatments at home. This leads to improvement of quality of life, reduction of time needed to travel to the healthcare institution and consequently also reduces costs also for the patient.Over one million residents in the USA and 2.5 million in Europe are estimated to have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with substantial costs for health care. These estimates do not factor in the ‘real’ price of IBD, which can impede career aspirations, instil social stigma and impair quality of life in patients.The Virtual Community Meeting, which offered an exchange of experience and opinions from healthcare professionals who are active in treating IBD, and patients with this chronic disease, revealed in-depth arguments and answers to some essential questions: which patients prefer subcutaneous over intravenous dosing; which patients continue to favour intravenous infusions; what are the limitations regarding both applications; what is the patient’s role in therapeutical decision-making and how does IBD affect the patient’s work, finances and quality of life? The aim of this article is to discuss the differences between subcutaneous and intravenous dosing from the health-economic, scientific, and personal perspectives.The meeting offered strong confirmation that most of the patients and healthcare professionals prefer subcutaneous over intravenous drug administration but emphasise the management of risks associated with treatment compliance. Patient education provided by the IBD team in this regard is mandatory. Quality of life of patients is poorer during active disease, but the findings that it can improve over time, including as a result of home- or self-administration of biologics, may be encouraging for individuals with this chronic disease.