Introduction: Methotrexate (MTX) is included in the therapeutic armamentarium of Crohn’s disease (CD), although its positioning is currently uncertain in an era in which many effective biological drugs are available. No systematic reviews or meta-analysis have stratified the clinical outcomes of MTX according to the specific clinical scenarios of its use. Methods: Medline, PubMed and Scopus were used to extract eligible studies, from database inception to May 2021. A total of 163 studies were included. A systematic review was performed by stratifying the outcomes of MTX according to formulation, clinical indication and criteria of efficacy. Results: The use of MTX is supported by randomized clinical trials only in steroid-dependent CD, with similar outcomes to thiopurines. The use of MTX in patients with steroid-refractoriness, failure of thiopurines or in combination with biologics is not supported by high levels of evidence. Combination therapy with biologics can optimize the immunogenic profile of the biological drug, but the impact on long-term clinical outcomes is described only in small series with anti-TNFα. Other off-label uses, such as fistulizing disease, mucosal healing, postoperative prevention and extraintestinal manifestations, are described in small uncontrolled series. The best performance in most indications was shown by parenteral MTX, favouring higher doses (25 mg/week) in the induction phase. Discussion: Evidence from high-quality studies in favour of MTX is scarce and limited to the steroid-dependent disease, in which other drugs are the leading players today. Many limitations on study design have been found, such as the prevalence of retrospective underpowered studies and the lack of stratification of outcomes according to specific types of patients and formulations of MTX. Conclusion: MTX is a valid option as steroid-sparing agent in steroid-dependent CD. Numerous other clinical scenarios require well-designed clinical studies in terms of patient profile, drug formulation and dosage, and criteria of efficacy.

Background and study aims Virtual chromoendoscopy with Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement (FICE) has never been studied in prospective trials of endoscopic surveillance for ulcerative colitis (UC). We compared FICE and white light endoscopy (WLE) in differentiation of visible lesions in UC. Patients and methods In a prospective parallel study, we compared consecutive outpatients with UC submitted to surveillance colonoscopy with FICE or WLE. At least one visible polypoid or non-polypoid lesion for each patient was required. Random biopsies from normal mucosa, targeted biopsies or removal of suspected neoplastic lesions and targeted biopsies of unsuspected lesions were performed. In the FICE arm, neoplasia was suspected according to a modified Kudo classification (FICE-KUDO/inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]). Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) and negative predictive value (NPV) were analyzed. Results One hundred patients were submitted to FICE (n = 46) or WLE (n = 54). Twenty-two patients (11 in WLE, 11 in FICE) had a least one neoplastic lesion. No neoplasia was found in random biopsies. Among 275 lesions, 17 of 136 by FICE and 27 of 139 by WLE were suspected neoplasia, but 28 (14 in each arm) were true neoplastic lesions. The accuracy of FICE-KUDO/IBD vs WLE (per lesion) was: SE 93 % vs 64 % (P = 0.065), SP 97 % vs 86 % (P = 0.002), positive-LR 28.3 vs 4.5 (P = 0.001), negative-LR 0.07 vs 0.42 (P = 0.092), NPV 99 % vs 96 % (P = 0.083). FICE-KUDO/IBD detected more non-polypoid lesions than WLE (P = 0.016). Conclusions Targeted biopsies of polypoid and non-polypoid lesions, using the modified Kudo classification with FICE are more accurate than WLE in UC surveillance.

Objectives: Comparative trials among biological drugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) provided conflicting results. After patent expire of infliximab originator, adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab and vedolizumab have been approved in Italy. We compared the efficacy of these four biologics in UC according to the concept of continuous clinical remission (CCR). Methods: In a retrospective, multicentre study, all UC patients treated with adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab or vedolizumab between 2014 and 2019 were included. All drugs were compared to each other according to the 1-year CCR rate, defined as Mayo partial score ≤2, with bleeding subscore = 0, without any relapse or optimization with dose escalation, topical treatments or steroid use after first clinical remission. Results: Four-hundred sixteen patients (adalimumab = 90, infliximab biosimilar = 105, golimumab = 79, vedolizumab = 142) were included. CCR was achieved in similar percentages among the groups (33%, 37%, 28%, 37%, respectively). All drugs were equivalent in biologic-naive patients, while vedolizumab was better than a second anti-TNFα in prior anti-TNFα agent failures. No differences were found according to type of adverse events or severe adverse events. Conclusions: Based on a strict definition of clinical remission, all biologics appear equally effective at 1 year. Changing to vedolizumab is more effective than switching to another anti-TNFα in TNFα failures.

Background: Current guidelines strongly recommend the use of validated classifications to support optical diagnosis of lesions with advanced endoscopic imaging in the lower gastrointestinal tract. However, the optimal strategy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is still a matter of debate. Objectives: To analyze the accuracy of endoscopic classifications or single predictors for in vivo lesion characterization during endoscopic surveillance of IBD with advanced endoscopic imaging. Design: Systematic review. Data sources and methods: Medline and PubMed were used to extract all studies which focused on lesion characterization of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions in IBD. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic classifications and single endoscopic predictors for lesion characterization were analyzed according to type of patients, lesions, and technology used. When available, the rates of true and false positives or negatives for neoplasia were pooled and the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Results: We included 35 studies (2789 patients; 5925 lesions – 1149 neoplastic). Advanced endoscopic imaging included dye-based chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), magnification and high-definition endoscopy, confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), endocytoscopy, and autofluorescence imaging. The Kudo classification of pit patterns was most frequently used, with pooled SE 83%, SP 83%, and NPV 95%. The endoscopic criteria with the highest accuracy, with minimum SE ⩾ 90%, SP ⩾ 80%, and NPV ⩾ 90% were: the Kudo-IBD classification used with VCE (Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement and i-SCAN); combined irregular surface and vascular patterns used with narrow band imaging; the Mainz classification used with CLE. Multiple clinical and technical factors were found to influence the accuracy of optical diagnosis in IBD. Conclusion: No single endoscopic factor has yet shown sufficient accuracy for lesion characterization in IBD surveillance. Conventional classifications developed in the non-IBD setting have lower accuracy in IBD. The use of new classifications adapted for IBD (Kudo-IBD), and new technologies based on in vivo microscopic analysis show promise.