Objectives We aimed to determine whether changes in acute severe colitis (ASC) management have translated to improved outcomes and to develop a simple model predicting steroid non-response on admission. Design Outcomes of 131 adult ASC admissions (117 patients) in Oxford, UK between 2015 and 2019 were compared with data from 1992 to 1993. All patients received standard treatment with intravenous corticosteroids and endoscopic disease activity scoring (Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS)). Steroid non-response was defined as receiving medical rescue therapy or surgery. A predictive model developed in the Oxford cohort was validated in Australia and India (Gold Coast University Hospital 2015–2020, n=110; All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 2018–2020, n=62). Results In the 2015–2019 Oxford cohort, 15% required colectomy during admission vs 29% in 1992–1993 (p=0.033), while 71 (54%) patients received medical rescue therapy (27% ciclosporin, 27% anti-tumour necrosis factor, compared with 27% ciclosporin in 1992–1993 (p=0.0015). Admission C reactive protein (CRP) (false discovery rate, p=0.00066), albumin (0.0066) and UCEIS scores (0.015) predicted steroid non-response. A four-point model was developed involving CRP of ≥100 mg/L (one point), albumin of ≤25 g/L (one point), and UCEIS score of ≥4 (1 point) or ≥7 (2 points). Patients scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the validation cohorts had steroid response rates of 100, 75.0%, 54.9%, 18.2% and 0%, respectively. Scoring of ≥3 was 84% (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) predictive of steroid failure (OR 11.9, 95% CI 10.8 to 13.0). Colectomy rates in the validation cohorts were were 8%–11%. Conclusions Emergency colectomy rates for ASC have halved in 25 years to 8%–15% worldwide. Patients who will not respond to corticosteroids are readily identified on admission and may be prioritised for early intensification of therapy.

Summary: Background: 5‐aminosalicylates (5‐ASA) are widely used in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but emerging evidence suggests that they may be safely withdrawn in significant subsets of patients. This is important to address: 5‐ASA therapy accounts for up to 25% of total healthcare costs in ulcerative colitis (UC), while almost a third of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receive long‐term 5‐ASA despite no clear evidence of benefit. Further, rationalising medication burden may improve overall adherence and outcome.Aims: To summarise the rationale for 5‐ASA withdrawal, review the current evidence in both UC and CD and consider the data surrounding colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention, guiding an evidence‐based withdrawal strategy.Methods: PubMed was searched to identify relevant studies. Only papers published in English were reviewed, with priority given to randomised clinical trials and meta‐analyses.Results: For patients with UC, consideration of 5‐ASA withdrawal should be made on a case‐by‐case basis, but it appears safest for those in deep remission without any of the following risk factors: younger age (<40 years), remission for less than 2 years, a history of multiple flares, extensive disease. 5‐ASA withdrawal should also be considered in patients with UC escalated to biologic therapy who have achieved remission and in all patients with CD. Although 5‐ASA therapy may have chemopreventive benefits for CRC, the cost‐benefit ratio appears significant, and this indication is not justified by evidence in those who have achieved remission and are continuing therapy with other agents, or in those in sustained remission without a history of extensive disease.Conclusions: Although the majority of patients with IBD receive 5‐ASA during their disease course, safe withdrawal appears possible in many, with important implications for both health economics and patient experience. A number of unanswered questions, however, remain.

Summary: Background: Anti‐tumour necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) therapy increases the risk of tuberculosis (TB). Given limitations of screening techniques, it remains uncertain if patients receiving anti‐TNF in TB endemic regions should be screened for latent infection with chemoprophylaxis restricted to those with proven infection, or if all patients should receive chemoprophylaxis.Aims: To compare the incidence of active TB with infliximab (IFX) following targeted and universal TB chemoprophylaxis, and to determine the rates of adverse events (AE) related to TB chemoprophylaxisMethods: A multi‐centre retrospective cohort study was performed at 18 hospitals in China of 1968 adult patients with IBD receiving IFX from 2009 to 2017. TB screening prior to IFX was performed with chest X‐ray and/or computed tomography [CT] and immune reactivity testing (interferon‐γ release assay and/or tuberculin skin test). Patients were followed‐up for a minimum of 3 months after IFX discontinuation, or until last hospital visit if IFX therapy was ongoing. Targeted strategy was defined as TB chemoprophylaxis only for patients with a positive latent TB screen, with universal strategy defined as TB chemoprophylaxis for all patients.Results: Mean follow‐up was 1.07 ± 0.87 years with a total follow‐up of 2102 patient‐years. There were 1433 patients in the targeted and 483 patients in the universal TB chemoprophylaxis groups, with no significant difference in the incidence rates of active TB between groups (673.3 per 100 000 population per year vs 891.5 per 100 000 population per year, P = 0.60). In the targeted group, 55/1433 patients received TB chemoprophylaxis compared with 483/483 in the universal group, with significantly fewer AEs related to TB chemoprophylaxis in the targeted compared to the universal group (0.35% (5/1433) vs 6.8% (33/483), P < 0.05).Conclusions: In this study of patients receiving IFX in a TB endemic area, universal chemoprophylaxis was not associated with a reduced risk of active TB when compared to a targeted chemoprophylaxis strategy, and AEs were more common. This supports the use of targeted TB chemoprophylaxis when anti‐TNF therapy is initiated in TB endemic regions.