Background: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been investigated as a treatment option for patients with inflammatory bowel disease with controversial results. We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of FMT in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: Double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adult patients with active ulcerative colitis who received either FMT or placebo were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of interest included the rate of combined clinical and endoscopic remission, endoscopic remission or response, clinical remission or response, and specific adverse events. The results were pooled together using Reviewer Manager 5.4 software. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger’s test. Results: Six RCTs involving 324 patients were included. Our findings demonstrate that compared with placebo, FMT has significant benefit in inducing combined clinical and endoscopic remission (odds ratio, 4.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.19-7.72; P < .0001). Subgroup analyses of influencing factors showed no differences between pooled or single stool donors (P = .71), fresh or frozen FMT (P = .35), and different routes or frequencies of delivery (P = .80 and .48, respectively). Pre-FMT antibiotics, bowel lavage, concomitant biologic therapy, and topical rectal therapy did not affect combined remission rates (P values of .47, .38, .28, and .40, respectively). Clinical remission or response and endoscopic remission or response were significantly higher in patients who received FMT compared with placebo (P < .05) without any differences in serious or specific adverse events. Conclusions: FMT demonstrated a clinical and endoscopic benefit in the short-term treatment of active ulcerative colitis, with a comparable safety profile to placebo. Future RCTs are required to standardize study protocols and examine data on maintenance therapy.

Background: Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, has shown sustained and clinically significant weight loss in the general population. There are limited data on outcomes of its use in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between June 4, 2021, and December 11, 2023, using TriNetX, a U.S. multi-institutional database in patients with obesity who had IBD compared with patients without IBD. The primary aim was to assess the mean total body weight (TBW) change between 6 and 15 months from initiation of semaglutide compared with baseline between the 2 cohorts. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching was performed for demographics, comorbid conditions, smoking status, and mean body mass index. A 2-sample t test was performed to assess mean TBW change from baseline, with a P value <.05 considered to be statistically significant. We also compared the risk of IBD-specific outcomes with and without semaglutide use in patients with IBD. Results: Out of 47 424 patients with IBD and obesity, 150 (0.3%) patients were prescribed semaglutide (mean age 47.4 ± 12.2 years; mean TBW 237 ± 54.8 pounds; mean body mass index 36.9 ± 6.5 kg/m2; 66% Crohn’s disease). There was no difference in mean TBW change after initiation of semaglutide in the IBD and non-IBD cohorts (−16 ± 13.4 pounds vs −18 ± 12.7 pounds; P = .24). There was no difference in mean TBW change between 6 and 12 months (−16 ± 13 pounds vs −15 ± 11.2 pounds; P = .24) and 12 and 15 months (−20 ± 13.2 pounds vs −21 ± 15.3 pounds; P = .49) between the 2 cohorts. There was no difference in the risk of oral or intravenous steroid use and any-cause hospitalization in the semaglutide group compared with the group without semaglutide use in patients with IBD. Conclusion: Semaglutide use is effective in patients with IBD and obesity similar to patients without IBD, with >5% mean weight loss. There was no increased risk of IBD-specific adverse events with semaglutide use.

Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a heterogeneous collection of chronic inflammatory disorders of the digestive tract. Clinical, genetic, and pathological heterogeneity makes it increasingly difficult to translate efficacy studies into real-world practice. Our objective was to develop a comprehensive natural history registry derived from multi-year observational data to facilitate effectiveness and clinical phenotypic research in IBD. Methods A longitudinal, consented registry with prospectively collected data was developed at UPMC. All adult IBD patients receiving care at the tertiary care center of UPMC are eligible for enrollment. Detailed data in the electronic health record are accessible for registry research purposes. Data are exported directly from the electronic health record and temporally organized for research. Results To date, there are over 2565 patients participating in the IBD research registry. All patients have demographic data, clinical disease characteristics, and disease course data including healthcare utilization, laboratory values, health-related questionnaires quantifying disease activity and quality of life, and analytical information on treatment, temporally organized for 6 years (2009–2015). The data have resulted in a detailed definition of clinical phenotypes suitable for association studies with parameters of disease outcomes and treatment response. We have established the infrastructure required to examine the effectiveness of treatment and disease course in the real-world setting of IBD. Conclusions The IBD research registry offers a unique opportunity to investigate clinical research questions regarding the natural course of the disease, phenotype association studies, effectiveness of treatment, and quality of care research.