Background: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in Crohn’s disease (CD), but some patients lose responsiveness and require alternative biologic therapy. Until recently, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the only other biological agents approved for use in CD. There are no randomised trials which compare the efficacy of these two agents in patients with anti-TNF refractory disease, but several retrospective cohort studies have compared their effectiveness in this setting. Aim: To review the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in anti-TNF refractory patients with CD. Methods: We included studies that compared the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in treating patients with anti-TNF refractory CD. We recorded the sample size, primary and secondary outcome measures and whether the studies employed adjustments for appropriate confounders. Results: Fourteen studies were included with a total sample size of 5651, of whom 2181 (38.6%) were treated with vedolizumab and the rest were treated with ustekinumab (61.4%). Of the fourteen studies included, eight found ustekinumab to be more effective in achieving clinical remission/steroid-free remission in the induction phase or during maintenance therapy (at least 1-year post-treatment) or that treatment persistence rates with ustekinumab were higher than with vedolizumab. Only one study reported vedolizumab to be superior during the maintenance phase in terms of clinical remission or treatment persistence rates. Biochemical outcomes were reported in five studies, two of which showed superiority for ustekinumab at 14 weeks and the other at 52 weeks. Only two studies reported endoscopic and/or radiologic outcomes; of these, one study showed ustekinumab to be significantly better at achieving endoscopic and radiologic responses. Adverse outcomes were broadly comparable, barring a single study which reported a lower hospitalisation rate for severe infection with ustekinumab. Conclusions: Most studies found ustekinumab to be more effective or non-inferior to vedolizumab in treating patients with anti-TNF refractory CD. Although many studies adjusted appropriately for confounders, the possibility of residual confounding remains and further data from prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings. Further studies are required to compare these two therapies to other emerging therapies, such as Janus-kinase inhibitors.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an unprecedented international emergency, resulting in a need to adapt the existing healthcare systems, in order to enable ongoing patient care despite the current disruptions. Telemedicine may be a viable option to continue hospital workflow, however there are barriers to its implementation. We set out to establish what barriers might exist and to assess the viability of teleclinics within the province KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), as perceived by doctors. Methods: This was a quantitative, observational, survey-based study targeted at medical doctors working in both the public as well as the private healthcare sector in University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). Results: One hundred and forty-seven (147) responses were included. The majority (86%) of respondents felt that telemedicine could provide a useful means to continuing hospital workflow, however, only 47% believed that it was a viable option for their unit. The major barrier identified was a feeling that doctors would-be at-increased medico-legal risk. Only 38.4% of doctors were familiar with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) guidelines on telemedicine usage. Other major barriers included: doctors feeling uncomfortable with not seeing a patient in person or not being able to perform a thorough physical examination. Other reasons identified as potential barriers were doctors foreseeing difficulty in accessing patient medical records and the absence of available systems to order investigations without the patient being physically present. Conclusion: Telemedicine is currently not widely utilised in KZN; although most doctors were of the opinion that it could be a useful tool in order to continue the workflow during the pandemic. The major barrier identified were issues surrounding medico-legal coverage.

Background and Aims: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) provide effective treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC), but inadequate response (IR) or intolerance occurs frequently. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a second JAKi in a real-world UC cohort. Methods: A retrospective multicenter cohort study encompassing 19 UK hospitals was undertaken. Primary outcome was clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index/partial Mayo Score ≤ 1) at weeks 8 and 24, based on available assessments. Biochemical (CRP ≤ 5mg/L and fecal calprotectin ≤ 200µg/g) and endoscopic (Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity/Mayo Endoscopic Subscore ≤ 1) remission were also assessed. Results: A total of 131 patients with active UC were included. The majority (60%) had exposure to ≥3 advanced therapies and 50% required corticosteroids at induction. Clinical remission rates were 59% and 51% at weeks 8 and 24. Biochemical and endoscopic remission rates were 61% and 60% at week 8, and 47% and 32% at week 24. All disease activity parameters significantly reduced by week 8 (P < .001). At week 24 no difference was detected in clinical remission rates between those with primary non-response (42%) or secondary loss of response (52%) to their first JAKi (P = .518). Clinical remission did not differ between upadacitinib (54%) and filgotinib (36%), P = .253. Adverse events occurred in 27% of patients, and serious adverse events in 8%. Conclusions: In this highly refractory cohort with active UC a second JAKi effectively achieved remission following IR to first JAKi. Type of first JAKi failure did not appear to influence clinical remission. No new safety signals were found.

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is increasingly used as an alternative to optical endoscopy (OE), particularly in Europe. However, challenges like low completion rates, inadequate bowel preparation, high conversion to OE, and discrepancies in findings remain. Accurate polyp size measurement in CCE is essential to avoid unnecessary procedures due to size overestimation. This retrospective study analysed real-world data to compare polyp size measurements between CCE, OE, and histopathology (HP) and assess the impact on the need for further procedures. Data from 2508 participants across 12 UK centres were analysed, with 4898 polyps identified via CCE. Polyps were matched with OE and HP reports based on size, location, morphology, sequence, and count, including those meeting ≥3 criteria. Regional data from Scotland and England were compared. Half of the CCE patients required follow-up OE, with 29 % undergoing colonoscopy. Among these, 32 % required OE for polypectomy, and 18 % due to incomplete CCE. In these cases, CCE overestimated polyp size by an average of 2.5 mm compared to HP and 2.7 mm compared to OE, leading to 17.3 % of potentially deferrable procedures. one in six participants had a further procedure reflecting the overestimation of polyp size. AI advancement could enhance polyp measurement accuracy and reduce unnecessary procedures whilst improving the cost-effectiveness of CCE.

Background: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a rare, painful and blistering genodermatosis with no cure. Treatment aims to prevent new lesions and manage complications. Previously, there were no management guidelines or consensus recommendations for patients with EB in Africa. Aim: The aim of this study is to produce a comprehensive, transdisciplinary and practical care guide that is contextually appropriate to the cultural setting and resource limitations in South Africa. Setting: Multicentre, multiprovincial study involving healthcare practitioners from five South African provinces – KwaZulu-Natal, Gauteng (Johannesburg, Pretoria), Western Cape (Cape Town, Stellenbosch), Free State (Bloemfontein) and the Eastern Cape (Umtata). Methods: Consensus recommendations for the care of patients with EB were developed by a transdisciplinary team of specialists in consultation with EB patients. The modified Delphi technique was used to reach a robust consensus with a threshold of 80% for each action point to ensure the validity and reliability of the recommendations. Results: In all, 16 consensus statements were developed, and the main themes included the clinical clues to the diagnosis, complications as per the subtype of EB, diagnostics in a resource-limited environment, management of EB, pruritus and pain, palliative care and genetic counselling. Conclusion: A transdisciplinary approach is essential for the holistic care of patients and their families with EB in the context of their resource limitations and cultural diversity providing much-needed guidance for clinicians in South Africa and similar settings. Contribution: This is the first consensus recommendation of care for patients with EB in Africa.