Background and Objectives: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is regularly used by several patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in many countries. Data concerning the use of CAM in Greek patients with IBD are lacking. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and indicators of CAM use in Greek IBD patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients with IBD attending our specialized IBD department in “Metropolitan General” Hospital, Holargos, Greece, completed a special questionnaire regarding the use of CAM. Several clinical and epidemiological characteristics were recorded. The results were compared with a disease-control group (patients with irritable bowel syndrome or gastroesophageal reflux disease). The study outcome was the prevalence of CAM use in both groups. In this study, 270 patients, of whom 128 were female, with IBD (Crohn’s disease 134 and ulcerative colitis 136) and a median age of 42.3 ± 17.5 years (range 31–52), and 138 patients serving as the disease control group were analyzed. Results: The prevalence of previous and current CAM use in patients with IBD was 36.3% versus 27.5% in the control group (no significant differences). No significant differences were also noticed between the patients with either CD or UC. In the multivariable analysis, university education and treatment with steroids and TNF-α inhibitors were independent social indicators of CAM use. Conclusions: The percentage of CAM use by the Greek patients with IBD was quite high, similar to other European countries. Although numerically higher, this percentage was not significantly different compared with the disease control group. The use of CAM in IBD patients in Greece is associated with a higher educational level, and treatment with steroids and TNF-α inhibitors.

Introduction: The proportion of elderly patients with IBD is steadily increasing due to the aging population and improved survival. Patients in this age group present specificities in diagnosis and treatment, particularly regarding the use of biological agents, where immunosenescence, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy affect the precise assessment of benefit and risk. Aim: This systematic review, which was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement, aims to synthesize available data on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and therapeutic management of IBD in the elderly, with emphasis on the most recent data and practical guidelines for the use of biological therapies. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted. A total of 40 studies were included, comprising 5 randomized controlled trials, 15 prospective cohort studies, and 20 retrospective observational studies. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, observational cohort studies, and population-based analyses. Given substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively. Data on demographics, disease phenotype, comorbidities, and treatment outcomes were extracted and analyzed. In addition, a narrative synthesis of major randomized trials of biologic therapies, recent guidelines, and data from prospective studies and patient registries was performed with a focus on safety and real-world outcomes in the elderly. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: The majority of included studies (85%) were found to have a low to moderate risk of bias, providing a reliable basis for the synthesis. Data show an increasing incidence of IBD in the elderly, often with a milder clinical course and a higher ratio of UC to CD. Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are significant challenges that increase the risk of adverse events. Although classic therapies remain effective, in many cases, a lower threshold is required to initiate advanced therapies, such as biologic agents. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, as well as biologics with alternative mechanisms of action such as vedolizumab (α4β7 integrin antagonist) and ustekinumab (interleukin-12/23 inhibitor), represent key therapeutic options in elderly patients with IBD. These biologic factors have efficacy comparable to that in younger patients and are considered attractive options due to reduced systemic immunosuppression and favorable safety profiles. JAK inhibitors are a practical option but are associated with an increased thromboembolic risk and require careful patient selection. Older age is associated with higher absolute rates of serious infections, hospitalizations, and, in some series, mortality. Individualized decision-making, including frailty assessment, vaccination coverage, infection control, and dose adjustments based on renal and hepatic function, is essential for optimal care. Conclusions: IBD in the elderly is a distinct clinical entity with unique challenges in diagnosis and management. A multidisciplinary approach and individualized treatment strategies are essential to ensure the balance between disease control and minimizing the risks associated with comorbidity and polypharmacy. Further research, including specifically designed clinical trials, is needed to optimize treatment and outcomes in this unique patient group.