Inflammatory Bowel Diseases had their first peak in incidence in countries in North America, Europe, and Oceania and are currently experiencing a new acceleration in incidence, especially in Latin America and Asia. Despite technological advances, 90 years after the development of the first molecule for the treatment of IBD, we still do not have drugs that promote disease remission in a generalized way. We carried out a narrative review on therapeutic advances in the treatment of IBD, the mechanisms of action, and the challenges facing the therapeutic goals in the treatment of IBD. Salicylates are still used in the treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. Corticosteroids have an indication restricted to the period of therapeutic induction due to frequent adverse events, while technologies with less systemic action have been developed. Most immunomodulators showed a late onset of action, requiring a differentiated initial strategy to control the disease. New therapeutic perspectives emerged with biological therapy, initially with anti-TNF, followed by anti-integrins and anti-interleukins. Despite the different mechanisms of action, there are similarities between the general rates of effectiveness. These similar results were also evidenced in JAK inhibitors and S1p modulators, the last therapeutic classes approved for the treatment of IBD.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is an immune-mediated disorder that includes Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis. CD is characterized by a transmural intestinal involvement from the mouth to the anus with recurrent and remitting symptoms that can lead to progressive bowel damage and disability over time.

Background: Inflammatory bowel diseases are immune-mediated disorders that include Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). UC is a progressive disease that affects the colorectal mucosa causing debilitating symptoms leading to high morbidity and work disability. As a consequence of chronic colonic inflammation, UC is also associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Objective: This consensus aims to provide guidance on the most effective medical management of adult patients with UC. Methods: A consensus statement was developed by stakeholders representing Brazilian gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons (Brazilian Organization for Crohn’s Disease and Colitis [GEDIIB]). A systematic review including the most recent evidence was conducted to support the recommendations and statements. All recommendations/statements were endorsed using a modified Delphi Panel by the stakeholders/experts in inflammatory bowel disease with at least 80% or greater consensus. Results and conclusion: The medical recommendations (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) were mapped according to the stage of treatment and severity of the disease onto three domains: management and treatment (drug and surgical interventions), criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatment, and follow-up/patient monitoring after initial treatment. The consensus targeted general practitioners, gastroenterologists and surgeons who manage patients with UC, and supports decision-making processes by health insurance companies, regulatory agencies, health institutional leaders, and administrators.

Background: Real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in ulcerative colitis (UC) are lacking in Latin America. In this study, we aimed to describe the effectiveness and safety of UST in a real-world multicenter cohort of Brazilian patients with UC. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, including patients with moderate-to-severe UC (total Mayo score 6–12, with an endoscopic subscore of 2 or 3) who received UST. The co-primary endpoints were clinical remission, defined as a total Mayo score ≤2 at 1 year, with a combined rectal bleeding and stool frequency subscore of ≤1, and endoscopic remission (endoscopic Mayo subscore of 0) within 1 year from baseline. Secondary endpoints included clinical response between weeks 12 and 16, endoscopic response within 1 year of starting UST, steroid-free clinical remission at week 52, and biochemical remission at week 52. We also evaluated UST treatment persistence and safety. Results: A total of 50 patients were included (female, n = 36, 72.0%), with a median disease duration of 9.2 years (1–27). Most patients had extensive colitis (n = 38, 76.0%), and 43 (86.0%) were steroid dependent at baseline. Forty patients (80.0%) were previously exposed to biologics (anti-TNF drugs, n = 31; vedolizumab [VDZ], n = 27). The co-primary endpoints of clinical remission at 1 year and endoscopic remission within 1 year were achieved by 50.0% and 36.0% of patients, respectively. Clinical response at weeks 12–16 was 56.0%, and endoscopic response, steroid-free clinical remission, and biochemical remission at week 52 were 68.0%, 46.5%, and 50.0%, respectively. The UST treatment persistence rate at 24 months was 73.7%. During the follow-up, 10 patients (20.0%) were hospitalized, mostly due to disease progression, and 3 patients required colectomy. Nine patients (18.0%) discontinued the drug mainly due to a lack of effectiveness. Twenty-seven adverse events (AEs) were reported, 16 of which were considered as serious AEs. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of difficult-to-treat UC patients, UST was associated with improvements in clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic outcomes. The safety profile was favorable, consistent with the known profile of UST.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are chronic entities characterized by local and systemic inflammation and may be associated with thrombosis. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of thromboembolic events (TEE) in hospitalized IBD patients and identify risk factors for their occurrence. This retrospective, single-center study included patients treated at a Brazilian IBD referral unit between 2004 and 2014. Patients hospitalized for more than 48 hours due to active IBD and who did not receive prophylaxis for TEE during hospitalization were included. Patients were allocated to 2 groups: those with TEE up to 30 days or at the time of hospitalization (TEE-group) and patients without TEE (control-group). Clinical and laboratory characteristics were evaluated. Of 53 patients evaluated, 69,8% with Crohn's disease (CD) and 30.2% with ulcerative colitis (UC). The prevalence of TEE 30 days before or during hospitalization was 15.1%, with 10.8% in CD and 25% in UC. In the TEE group, mean serum albumin was 2.06 g/dL versus 3.30 g/dL in the control group. Patients with albumin levels below 2.95 g/dL (43.18%) had a higher risk of developing TEE (relative risk, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.53) (P<0.001). Albumin levels were significantly lower in patients with TEE, and hypoalbuminemia was considered a risk factor for the development of TEE in this population.

Background: The most efficient way to prevent complications from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is to provide patients with optimized care. Nonetheless, in Brazil, there is no validated methodology for evaluating health services recognized as comprehensive care units (CCU), making it difficult to assess the quality of care provided. Objective: To understand the current scenario, map the distribution of centers and identify strengths and weaknesses, considering local and regional characteristics. Methods: The study was carried out in three phases. Initially, the Brazilian Organization for Crohn’s disease and colitis (GEDIIB) developed 22 questions to characterize CCU in Brazil. In the second phase, all GEDIIB members were invited to respond to the survey with the 11 questions considered most relevant. In the last phase, an interim analysis of the results was performed, using the IBM SPSS Statistics v 29.0.1.0 software. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the center’s profile. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. Results: There were 53 responses from public centers (11 excluded). Most centers were concentrated in the Southeastern (n=22/52.4%) and only 1 (2.4%) in the Northern region of Brazil. Thirty-nine centers (92.9%) perform endoscopic procedures, but only 9 (21.4%) have access to enteroscopy and/or small bowel capsule endoscopy. Thirty-three centers (78.6%) offer infusion therapy locally, 26 (61.9%) maintain IBD patient records, 13 (31.0%) reported having an IBD nurse, 34 (81.0%) have specific evidence-based protocols and only 7 (16.7%) have a patient satisfaction methodology. In the private scenario there were 56 responses (10 excluded). There is also a concentration in the Southeastern and Southern regions. Thirty-nine centers (84.8%) have access to endoscopic procedures and 19 perform enteroscopy and/or small bowel capsule endoscopy, more than what is observed in the public environment. Infusion therapy is available in 24 centers (52.2%). Thirty-nine centers (84.8%) maintain a specific IBD patient database, 17 (37%) have an IBD nurse, 36 (78.3%) have specific evidence-based protocols, and 22 (47. 8%) apply a patient satisfaction methodology. Conclusion: IBD CCU in Brazil were mainly located in the Southeastern and Southern regions of the country. Most centers have dedicated multidisciplinary teams and IBD specialists. There is still a current need to improve the proportion of IBD nurses in IBD care in Brazil.