Conventional medical treatment for ulcerative colitis can have limited efficacy or severe adverse reactions requiring additional treatment or colectomy. Hence, different biological agents that target specific immunological pathways are be-ing investigated for treating ulcerative colitis. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents were the first biologics to be used for treating inflammatory bowel disease. For example, infliximab and adalimumab, which are anti-TNF agents, are be-ing used for treating ulcerative colitis. Recently, golimumab, another anti-TNF agent, and vedolizumab, an anti-adhesion therapy, have been approved for ulcerative colitis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In addition, new medications such as tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, and etrolizumab, another anti-adhesion therapy, are emerging as therapeutic agents. Therefore, there is a need for further studies to select appropriate patient groups for these biologics and to improve the outcomes of ulcerative colitis treatment through appropriate medical usage.

Anti-integrin therapy for inflammatory bowel disease

The pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not well-understood; however, increased and persistent intestinal inflammation, due to inappropriate immune responses that are caused by interactions between genetic factors, gut microbiota, and environmental factors, are thought to lead to IBD. Various studies have identified more than 240 genetic variants related to IBD. These genetic variants are involved in innate and adaptive immunity, autophagy, defective bacterial handing, interleukin-23 and 10 signaling, and so on. According to several epidemiological and clinical studies, the phenotypes and clinical course of IBD differ between Asians and Europeans. Although the risk loci for IBD typically overlap between Asians and Westerners, genetic heterogeneity has been detected in many loci/genes, such as NOD2/CARD15, TNFSF15 and human leukocyte antigen, contributing to the risk of IBD. Thus, although common pathways exist between Westerners and Asians in the development of IBD, their significance may differ for individual pathways. Although genetic studies are not universally applicable in the clinical field, they may be useful for diagnosing and categorizing IBD, predicting therapeutic responses and toxicity to drugs, and assessing prognosis by risk modeling, thereby enabling precision medicine for individual patients.

Han Ah Lee, Joon Young Jung, Young-Sun Lee, Young Kul Jung, Ji Hoon Kim, Hyonggin An, Hyung Joon Yim, Yoon Tae Jeen, Jong Eun Yeon, Kwan Soo Byun, Soon Ho Um, and Yeon Seok Seo. Gut and Liver 2021;15:599-605. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20171

Low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) use is reported to be as safe and effective as traditional 4-L polyethylene glycol use. However, PEG-Asc produces bubbles, which cause problems during colonoscopy. Data on the effects of using antifoaming agents such as simethicone with PEG-Asc are lacking. The aim of this CONSORT-prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, controlled trial is to compare the quality of bowel preparation and compliance between PEG-Asc users and PEG-Asc plus simethicone users. Adult outpatients aged 18 to 80 years undergoing colonoscopy were recruited to the study. Two hundred sixty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment arms, PEG-Asc or PEG-Asc plus simethicone. The primary outcome measure was the bowel cleansing quality using Boston bowel preparation scale and bubble scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient tolerability and doctor tolerability. The simethicone group showed superior cleansing results (6–9 Boston scale scores: 99% vs. 84%, <5% bubble scores: 96% vs. 49%, P < 0.001) and fewer gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal fullness: 24% vs. 55%, colicky pain: 5% vs. 24%, P < 0.001) than the non-simethicone group. Moreover, endoscopist fatigue during colonoscopy was lower in the simethicone group than in the non-simethicone group (1.31 ± 0.75 vs. 2.97 ± 2.14, P < 0.001). PEG-Asc plus simethicone use was more effective and associated with better patient and endoscopist tolerance than PEG-Asc use. Therefore, this combination is recommended as one of the promising methods for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.