Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Background The value of histologic assessment after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has not been definitively determined. We evaluated the correlation between histology and endoscopic findings, as well as the proportion of patients with inflammation in areas beyond the pouch body on their initial pouchoscopy after IPAA. Methods In a retrospective cohort study, we evaluated patients who underwent IPAA for UC between 2012 and 2020 and subsequently underwent a pouchoscopy with routine biopsies of the pouch body, pre-pouch ileum, and rectal cuff. We compared endoscopic and histologic assessments in each location using χ2 testing and Spearman correlation, as well as the development of pouchitis and Crohn’s-like disease of the pouch (CLDP) in longitudinal follow-up. Results Among 126 patients, the median time to pouchoscopy after IPAA was 384 days, with 82 patients (65%) having inflammation of the pouch body. Significantly more patients with pouch body inflammation had histologic inflammation compared with patients without pouch body inflammation (96% vs 22%, P < .001, r = 0.769). Additionally, 16 patients (13%) were found to have endoscopic inflammation of the pre-pouch ileum with corresponding histologic inflammation in 88%; of these, 31% later developed CLDP. In contrast, 13% of patients with no endoscopic inflammation displayed histologic inflammation, with none later developing CLDP. Forty-six percent of patients had rectal cuff inflammation (correlation with histologic inflammation r = 0.580). Conclusions In our evaluation, the added benefit of histology in the presence of visible endoscopic inflammation for disease activity assessment scores is unclear. The prognostic value of histologic inflammation without endoscopic inflammation warrants a longitudinal study. Lay Summary Endoscopic evaluation after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis should include anatomic areas beyond the pouch body, including the rectal cuff and the pre-pouch ileum. The added benefit of histology in the presence of visible inflammation when assessing disease activity is unclear.

Purpose of Review Although the need for intestinal resection as a treatment for Crohn’s disease (CD) has significantly decreased as the use of advanced therapies has increased in recent decades, approximately one-half of patients with CD will require intestinal resection within 10 years of diagnosis. We sought to review emerging concepts in the postoperative management of patients with CD, including the use of novel advanced therapies, new diagnostic and/or imaging modalities, and new methods of endoscopic scoring. Recent Findings Ileocolonoscopy remains the predominant method of assessing recurrence after ileocolonic resection for CD; however, many authors have re-evaluated the traditional scoring methods for recurrence including the Rutgeerts score. Other non-invasive methods of assessment have emerged including biomarkers such as fecal calprotectin as well as intestinal ultrasound. Although anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapies such as infliximab and adalimumab have established evidence profiles in the postoperative management of CD, novel advanced therapies are being investigated including ustekinumab and vedolizumab. Summary Surgery remains an integral treatment modality in the longitudinal care of patients with CD, and thus, understanding emerging literature regarding the postoperative management of patients with CD including preventing and managing postoperative recurrence is critical.

Abstract Background Previous research suggests patients living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) understand IBD remission differently than healthcare professionals, which could influence patient expectations and clinical outcomes. We investigated 3 questions to better understand this: (1) How do patients currently understand remission; (2) Do patients currently face any barriers to communicating with their healthcare professional about remission; and (3) Can existing educational material be improved to help patients feel more prepared to discuss remission and treatment goals with their healthcare professional? Methods We sent a web-based survey to adult patients with IBD in the United States. This survey included an educational experiment where patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 improved versions of existing educational material. Results In total, 1495 patients with IBD completed the survey. The majority of patients (67%) agreed that remission is possible in IBD, but there was significant diversity in how they defined it with the most common being “my symptoms are reduced” (22%) and “I am no longer experiencing any symptoms” (14%). Patients reported being able to communicate openly with their healthcare professionals. Exposure to improved educational material did not have a statistically significant effect on patients’ feelings of preparedness for discussing different aspects of their care with their healthcare professionals. Conclusions Our study confirms that patients tend to define remission in terms of resolving symptoms. We found little evidence of barriers preventing patients from discussing remission with their healthcare professionals. This suggests that educational material could be used to resolve this discrepancy in understanding. Lay Summary We surveyed 1495 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We found that patients tend to define IBD remission in terms of resolving symptoms and that there is little evidence of barriers preventing patients from discussing remission with their healthcare professionals.

IntroductionTargeted immunomodulators (eg, advanced therapies) effectively achieve symptomatic remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, ~25%–50% of patients with IBD achieving symptomatic remission with an advanced therapy may have continued endoscopically/radiologically active bowel inflammation, and it is uncertain whether changing alternative advanced therapies in asymptomatic patients with IBD will reduce bowel inflammation and achieve durable deep remission.Methods and analysisThe QUality Outcomes Treating IBD to Target (QUOTIENT) study is an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial that aims to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to an alternative advanced therapy targeting endoscopic/radiological remission (treat-to-target) versus continuing the initial, or index, advanced therapy, in asymptomatic patients with IBD with moderate-to-severe endoscopic/radiological bowel inflammation. Enrolment is planned for ~250 participants in Canada/USA, randomised 1:1 to switching to alternative advanced therapy or continuing index advanced therapy, and then followed 104 weeks within routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes measure efficacy and quality of life/treatment burden/safety. Primary endpoint is the time from randomisation to treatment failure.Ethics and disseminationThe study is conducted in compliance with the protocol, ICH Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirements and appropriate review boards/independent ethics committees (approval numbers: Pro00077486; Pro00061437; STUDY00002062; 22-004171; i22-01269; IRB22-0890; IRB_00154397; 2000032384; SHIRB#2022.095-2; STUDY00007146; MMC#2024-18; REB#125290; 17784; Pro00142214; 20240660-01H), with documented written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, scientific presentations, and publicly available Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) websites, including lay summaries. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation Education, Support, and Advocacy Department, and our patient advocacy stakeholder, will develop educational and marketing resources to communicate findings to a broad audience (>250 000 patients/caregivers/healthcare professionals).Trial registration number NCT05230173.