The present manuscript aims to review the history, recent advances, evidence, and challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy. Although it is mainly focused on polyp detection and characterization, it also considers other potential applications (i.e., inflammatory bowel disease) and future perspectives. Some of the most recent algorithms show promising results that are similar to human expert performance. The integration of AI in routine clinical practice will be challenging, with significant issues to overcome (i.e., regulatory, reimbursement). Medico-legal issues will also need to be addressed. With the exception of an AI system that is already available in selected countries (GI Genius; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), the majority of the technology is still in its infancy and has not yet been proven to reach a sufficient diagnostic performance to be adopted in the clinical practice. However, larger players will enter the arena of AI in the next few months.

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has emerged in the past two decades as the cornerstone for assessing small bowel disorders, and its use is supported by several guidelines. However, there are several limitations, such as the considerable time required for gastroenterologists to review these videos and reach a diagnosis. To address these limitations, researchers have explored the integration of artificial intelligence in the interpretation of these videos. In our review, we explore the evolving and emerging role of artificial intelligence in SBCE and examine the latest advancements and ongoing studies in these areas, aiming at overcoming current limitations.

Background: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely implemented as a first‐line tool in organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, including Italy. Following a positive FIT, colonoscopy is recommended. Computer‐aided detection (CADe) systems have the potential to enhance adenoma detection, particularly in FIT‐positive populations where identifying advanced adenomas is critical for cancer prevention. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of CADe‐assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy (SC) in a FIT‐based screening cohort. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, patients with a positive FIT result were randomized to undergo either CADe‐assisted or standard colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). Secondary endpoints included overall adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), and mean withdrawal time (WT). Results: Of 1077 patients enrolled, 68 were excluded due to inadequate bowel preparation, leaving 1009 patients for analysis (CADe: n = 506; SC: n = 503). AADR was comparable between the groups (21.3% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.794). However, CADe significantly improved ADR (67.6% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.012) and APC (1.82 ± 2.12 vs. 1.34 ± 1.81, p < 0.001). Mean WT was longer in the CADe group (17.10 ± 8.28 min vs. 16.13 ± 8.28 min, p = 0.016). Conclusions: In a FIT‐based organized CRC screening setting, CADe did not enhance detection of AADR with a modest increase in withdrawal time. NCT04441580.

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for high-quality colonoscopy but remains challenging in hospitalized patients, and comparative data on preparation volume are limited. To compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of very low-volume (1-liter [1L]), low-volume (2-liter [2L]), and high-volume (4-liter [4L]) polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens for inpatient colonoscopy preparation. Multicenter, randomized controlled, endoscopist-blinded trial. (EudraCT: 2019-002799-15; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04708366). Community and academic hospitals in Italy. Hospitalized adults undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to split-dose 1L PEG-ascorbate, 2L PEG-ascorbate, or 4L PEG. Primary end point was adequate bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥6 with all segments ≥2). Secondary end points included high-quality cleansing (BBPS score, 8 to 9), high-quality right-colon cleansing (BBPS score, 3), and willingness to repeat. Among 665 randomly assigned patients (1L, n = 228; 2L, n = 218; 4L, n = 219), adequate overall cleansing occurred in 82.0%, 78.0%, and 78.5% (absolute difference between the 1L and 2L groups [Δ1L-2L], 4.0 percentage points [95% CI, -3.4 to 11.4 percentage points]; absolute difference between the 1L and 4L groups [Δ1L-4L], 3.5 percentage points [CI, -3.9 to 10.9 percentage points]). High-quality overall cleansing occurred in 46.9%, 35.3%, and 37.4% (Δ1L-2L, 11.6 percentage points [CI, 2.5 to 20.5 percentage points]; Δ1L-4L, 9.5 percentage points [CI, 0.3 to 18.5 percentage points]). High-quality right-colon cleansing occurred in 40.6%, 29.5%, and 31.6% (Δ1L-2L, 11.2 percentage points [CI, 2.1 to 20.0 percentage points]; Δ1L-4L, 9.0 percentage points [CI, 0.0 to 17.9 percentage points]). Tolerability was good across regimens, with the highest willingness to repeat in the 1L group (84.2%), despite more frequent vomiting and thirst. Patients requiring urgent colonoscopy for active gastrointestinal bleeding and those with severe/unstable comorbid conditions were excluded. In hospitalized adults undergoing elective colonoscopy, 1L PEG-ascorbate yielded higher rates of high-quality cleansing, including right colon, than 2L PEG-ascorbate and 4L PEG, with similar rates of adequate cleansing and high willingness to repeat. Norgine Srl.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major complication in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), due to coexistence of altered microbiota, chronic inflammation, and immune dysregulation. This narrative review summarizes recent evidence on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, diagnosis, and management of CDI in IBD. Overall, IBD patients have a four- to five-fold higher risk of CDI than the general population and face more severe courses, higher rates of hospitalization, colectomy, recurrence, and mortality. Pathogenesis involves profound dysbiosis with loss of butyrate-producing Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, bile acid imbalance that promotes spore germination, and enhanced toxin effects on an already inflamed mucosa. Major risk factors include active colonic disease, broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure, prolonged hospitalization, and corticosteroid or combined immunosuppressive therapy. Diagnosis requires careful integration of stool assays with clinical evaluation, supported by endoscopy or imaging when needed, to distinguish infection from IBD flares. Recommended first-line treatments are fidaxomicin or oral vancomycin, reserving fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent or high-risk cases. Optimal IBD control is essential to reduce both primary and recurrent infection. CDI and IBD share a mutual pathogenic interplay in which microbial, immune, and therapeutic factors from each condition drive and magnify the other. Early recognition, guideline-based antibiotic therapy, judicious use of immunosuppression, and microbiota-based preventive strategies are crucial to improve patient outcomes and limit recurrence, thus reducing healthcare costs.

INTRODUCTION: Mucosal exposure devices (MEDs) and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems may both improve adenoma detection through distinct mechanisms: expanding mucosal visualization and highlighting lesions, respectively. This study investigated the efficacy of combining CADe-assisted colonoscopy with a MED compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone. METHODS: This international, multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm study (NTC05220345) was conducted at 3 centers that also participated in the previous DISCOVERY II randomized controlled trial, comparing CADe-assisted with conventional colonoscopy. Eligible participants were patients referred for diagnostic, nonfecal immunochemical test screening, or surveillance colonoscopy and underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy (DISCOVERY, PENTAX Medical) with a MED using an integrated inflatable balloon (G-EYE, SMART Medical Systems). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR); secondary outcomes included sessile serrated lesion detection rate and withdrawal time without interventions. Outcomes were compared with historical controls of the CADe-arm of the DISCOVERY II study. RESULTS: Of 196 enrolled participants, 182 were included in the final analysis and compared with 250 participants from the historical CADe-arm. ADR was 47.3% in the CADe + MED-group vs 38.4% in the CADe-group ( P = .066; absolute difference: 8.9%, 95% confidence interval: 0.6–18.3). Mixed-effects logistic regression model adjusting for clustering and confounders calculated an odds ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 0.74–1.81). Median withdrawal time was slightly longer with CADe + MED compared with CADe-only (10.0 vs 9.2 minutes, P = 0.004), whereas sessile serrated lesion detection rate was not significantly different (12.6% vs 18.4%, P = 0.11). DISCUSSION: In this study using historical controls, CADe-assisted colonoscopy combined with a MED did not significantly increase ADR compared with CADe alone, suggesting limited synergistic benefit.