Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveIron deficiency is a common complication in patients with IBD and oral iron therapy is suggested to exacerbate IBD symptoms. We performed an open-labelled clinical trial to compare the effects of per oral (PO) versus intravenous (IV) iron replacement therapy (IRT).DesignThe study population included patients with Crohn's disease (CD; N=31), UC (N=22) and control subjects with iron deficiency (non-inflamed, NI=19). After randomisation, participants received iron sulfate (PO) or iron sucrose (IV) over 3 months. Clinical parameters, faecal bacterial communities and metabolomes were assessed before and after intervention.ResultsBoth PO and IV treatments ameliorated iron deficiency, but higher ferritin levels were observed with IV. Changes in disease activity were independent of iron treatment types. Faecal samples in IBD were characterised by marked interindividual differences, lower phylotype richness and proportions of Clostridiales. Metabolite analysis also showed separation of both UC and CD from control anaemic participants. Major shifts in bacterial diversity occurred in approximately half of all participants after IRT, but patients with CD were most susceptible. Despite individual-specific changes in phylotypes due to IRT, PO treatment was associated with decreased abundances of operational taxonomic units assigned to the species Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Ruminococcus bromii, Dorea sp. and Collinsella aerofaciens. Clear IV-specific and PO-specific fingerprints were evident at the level of metabolomes, with changes affecting cholesterol-derived host substrates.ConclusionsShifts in gut bacterial diversity and composition associated with iron treatment are pronounced in IBD participants. Despite similar clinical outcome, oral administration differentially affects bacterial phylotypes and faecal metabolites compared with IV therapy.Trial registration numberclinicaltrial.gov (NCT01067547).

In a phase 4, double-blind, randomized trial, vedolizumab therapy was more effective than placebo in inducing remission in patients with chronic pouchitis after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.

Abstract Background In ulcerative colitis, a pouchitis is the most common long-term adverse effect after proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Approximately 5% of patients develop chronic antibiotic-dependent or antibiotic-refractory pouchitis without any effective treatment. The aim of this trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of chronic pouchitis. Methods This was a single-center, double-blinded, parallel group trial comparing donor fecal microbiota transplantation with placebo (autologous transplant) in chronic pouchitis. Twenty-six patients were recruited at the Helsinki University Hospital between December 2017 and August 2018 and were randomly allocated a 1:1 ratio to either donor fecal microbiota transplantation or placebo. The protocol included 2 transplantations into the pouch on weeks 0 and 4, and patients were followed up for 52 weeks. Results Nine patients in the intervention group and 8 patients in the placebo group relapsed during the 52-week follow-up, and the relapse-free survival did not differ between the groups (P = 0.183, log-rank; hazard ratio, 1.90 [95% confidence interval, 0.73-4.98; P = 0.190]). In the subgroup analysis of patients using continuous antibiotics before the study, the relapse-free survival was shorter in the intervention group (P = 0.004, log-rank; hazard ratio, 13.08 [95% confidence interval, 1.47-116.60; P = 0.021]). No major adverse effects were reported. Conclusions The fecal microbiota transplantation treatment regime used in our study was not effective in the treatment of chronic pouchitis. The safety profile of fecal microbiota transplantation was good. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03378921.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a potential therapeutic approach to restore normal intestinal microbiota in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), which is associated with dysbiosis; however, treatment efficacy remains unclear. Hence, we studied the impact of antibiotic pretreatment with amoxicillin, fosfomycin, and metronidazole (AFM therapy) and FMT versus AFM alone.MethodsAFM therapy was administered to patients for 2 weeks until 2 days before FMT. Patients' spouses or relatives were selected as donor candidates. Donor fecal samples were collected on the day of administration and transferred into the patient's colon by colonoscopy within 6 hours. Microbiome analysis was performed by 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing.ResultsPatients with mild-to-severe active UC (combination-therapy group, n = 21; AFM monotherapy group, n = 20) were included. Thirty-six patients completed this assessment (combination-therapy group, n = 17; AFM monotherapy group, n = 19). A higher clinical response was observed after combination therapy compared with AFM monotherapy at 4 weeks after treatment. After the 2-week AFM therapy, the Bacteroidetes composition was nearly abolished. The Bacteroidetes proportion recovered in clinical responders at 4 weeks after FMT was not observed in the AFM monotherapy group. Persistent antimicrobial-associated dysbiosis found in the AFM monotherapy group was reversed by FMT. The recovery rate of Bacteroidetes at 4 weeks after FMT correlated with endoscopic severity.ConclusionsFMT following antimicrobial bowel cleansing synergistically contributes to the recovery of the Bacteroidetes composition, which is associated with clinical response and UC severity. Thus, this therapeutic protocol may be useful for managing UC.

Evidence about specific carbohydrate diet (SCD) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is limited. We conducted 54 single-subject, double-crossover N-of-1 trials comparing SCD with a modified SCD (MSCD) and comparing each with the participant's baseline, usual diet (UD). Across 19 sites, we recruited patients aged 7-18 years with IBD and active inflammation. Following a 2-week baseline (UD), patients were randomized to 1 of 2 sequences of 4 alternating 8-week SCD and MSCD periods. Outcomes included fecal calprotectin and patient-reported symptoms. We report posterior probabilities from Bayesian models comparing diets. Twenty-one (39%) participants completed the trial, 9 (17%) completed a single crossover, and 24 (44%) withdrew. Withdrawal or early completion occurred commonly (lack of response [n = 11], adverse events [n = 11], and not desiring to continue [n = 6]). SCD and MSCD performed similarly for most individuals. On average, there was <1% probability of a clinically meaningful difference in IBD symptoms between SCD and MSCD. The average treatment difference was -0.3 (95% credible interval -1.2, 0.75). There was no significant difference in the ratio of fecal calprotectin geometric means comparing SCD and MSCD (0.77, 95% credible interval 0.51, 1.10). Some individuals had improvement in symptoms and fecal calprotectin compared with their UD, whereas others did not. SCD and MSCD did not consistently improve symptoms or inflammation, although some individuals may have benefited. However, there are inherent difficulties in examining dietary changes that complicate study design and ultimately conclusions regarding effectiveness.

This study assesses 2 different disease activity measures, the Modified Truelove Witts Severity Index and the partial Mayo score, in hospitalized patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC) for prediction of postdischarge corticosteroid-free clinical remission and endoscopic improvement to help guide future considerations for disease activity assessment. In this post hoc analysis from the Tofacitinib for Hospitalized Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis Management (TRIUMPH) trial, these results suggest resolution of the Mayo rectal bleeding subscore may have high prognostic utility and could be considered as a primary end point for hospitalized UC trials. The study underscores the need for further research on patient-reported outcomes and endoscopic indices in larger populations for inpatient UC trials.

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is frequently seen in inflammatory bowel disease. Traditionally, oral iron supplementation is linked to extensive gastrointestinal side effects and possible disease exacerbation. This multicenter phase-3 study tested the efficacy and safety of ferric maltol, a complex of ferric (Fe3+) iron with maltol (3-hydroxy-2-methyl-4-pyrone), as a novel oral iron therapy for IDA.MethodsAdult patients with quiescent or mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease, mild-to-moderate IDA (9.5–12.0 g/dL and 9.5–13.0 g/dL in females and males, respectively), and documented failure on previous oral ferrous products received oral ferric maltol capsules (30 mg twice a day) or identical placebo for 12 weeks according to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study design. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline to week 12. Safety and tolerability were assessed.ResultsOf 329 patients screened, 128 received randomized therapy (64 ferric maltol-treated and 64 placebo-treated patients) and comprised the intent-to-treat efficacy analysis: 55 ferric maltol patients (86%) and 53 placebo patients (83%) completed the trial. Significant improvements in Hb were observed with ferric maltol versus placebo at weeks 4, 8, and 12: mean (SE) 1.04 (0.11) g/dL, 1.76 (0.15) g/dL, and 2.25 (0.19) g/dL, respectively (P < 0.0001 at all time-points; analysis of covariance). Hb was normalized in two-thirds of patients by week 12. The safety profile of ferric maltol was comparable with placebo, with no impact on inflammatory bowel disease severity.ConclusionsFerric maltol provided rapid clinically meaningful improvements in Hb and showed a favorable safety profile, suggesting its possible use as an alternative to intravenous iron in IDA inflammatory bowel disease.

Several probiotic compounds have shown promise in the therapy of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, a strong sustained benefit remains to be seen. Uncontrolled pilot studies suggest that a probiotic preparation (VSL#3) maintains remission in mild to moderate UC and reduces active inflammation in adult patients. Aims of our prospective, 1-year, placebo-controlled, double-blind study were to assess the efficacy of VSL#3 on induction and maintenance of remission and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the probiotic preparation therapy in children with active UC. A total of 29 consecutive patients (mean age: 9.8 years; range: 1.7-16.1 years; female/male: 13/16) with newly diagnosed UC were randomized to receive either VSL#3 (weight-based dose, range: 450-1,800 billion bacteria/day; n=14) or an identical placebo (n=15) in conjunction with concomitant steroid induction and mesalamine maintenance treatment. Children were prospectively evaluated at four time points: within 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year after diagnosis or at the time of relapse. Lichtiger colitis activity index and a physician's global assessment were used to measure disease activity. At baseline, within 6 months and 12 months or at the time of relapse, all patients were assessed endoscopically and histologically. All 29 patients responded to the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) induction therapy. Remission was achieved in 13 patients (92.8%) treated with VSL#3 and IBD therapy and in 4 patients (36.4%) treated with placebo and IBD therapy (P<0.001). Overall, 3 of 14 (21.4%) patients treated with VSL#3 and IBD therapy and 11 of 15 (73.3%) patients treated with placebo and IBD therapy relapsed within 1 year of follow-up (P=0.014; RR=0.32; CI=0.025-0.773; NNT=2). All 3 patients treated with VSL#3 and 6 of 11 (54.5%) patients treated with placebo relapsed within 6 months of diagnosis. At 6 months, 12 months, or at time of relapse, endoscopic and histological scores were significantly lower in the VSL#3 group than in the placebo group (P<0.05). There were no biochemical or clinical adverse events related to VSL#3. This is the first pediatric, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that suggests the efficacy and safety of a highly concentrated mixture of probiotic bacterial strains (VSL#3) in active UC and demonstrates its role in maintenance of remission.

Although chromoendoscopy is currently the recommended mode of surveillance in patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis, it is technically challenging and requires a long procedure time. The aim of this study was to compare the dysplasia detection rate of high-definition white light endoscopy with random biopsy (HDWL-R) vs high-definition chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsy (HDCE-T). This was a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial involving 9 tertiary teaching hospitals in South Korea. A total of 210 patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis were randomized to undergo either the HDWL-R group (n = 102) or HDCE-T group (n = 108). The detection rates of colitis-associated dysplasia (CAD) or all colorectal neoplasia from each trial arm were compared. There was no significant difference in the CAD detection rate between HDCE-T and HDWL-R groups (4/102, 3.9% vs 6/108, 5.6%, P = 0.749). However, HDCE-T showed a trend toward improved colorectal neoplasia detection compared with HDWL-R (21/102, 20.6% vs 13/108, 12.0%, P = 0.093). The median (range) time for colonoscopy withdrawal between the 2 groups was similar (17.6 [7.0-43.3] minutes vs 16.5 [6.3-38.1] minutes; P=0.212; for HDWL-R and HDCE-T, respectively). The total number of biopsies was significantly larger in the HDWL-R group (34 [12-72]) compared with the HDCE-T group (9 [1-20]; P < 0.001). On the basis of our prospective randomized controlled trial, HDCE-T was not superior to HDWL-R for detecting CADs.

Some studies have suggested that ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) may have a chemopreventive effect on the development of colorectal neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). We examined the effects of high-dose (28-30 mg/kg/day) UDCA on the development of colorectal neoplasia in patients with UC and PSC. Patients with UC and PSC enrolled in a prior, multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial of high-dose UDCA were evaluated for the development of colorectal neoplasia. Patients with UC and PSC who received UDCA were compared with those who received placebo. We reviewed the pathology and colonoscopy reports for the development of low-grade or high-grade dysplasia or colorectal cancer. Fifty-six subjects were followed for a total of 235 patient years. Baseline characteristics (including duration of PSC and UC, medications, patient age, family history of colorectal cancer, and smoking status) were similar for both the groups. Patients who received high-dose UDCA had a significantly higher risk of developing colorectal neoplasia (dysplasia and cancer) during the study compared with those who received placebo (hazard ratio: 4.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.30-20.10, P=0.02). Long-term use of high-dose UDCA is associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with UC and PSC.