Management of acute severe ulcerative colitis-an update for generalist and specialist clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a potentially life-threatening medical emergency that occurs in up to 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis. Although intravenous corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy, 30-40% of patients will not respond and need timely consideration of rescue therapy with (currently) either infliximab or ciclosporin or indeed colectomy, underscoring the importance of multidisciplinary care to ensure favourable outcomes for patients. We discuss the current evidence and present an approach to the management of ASUC for general and specialist clinicians caring for patients with ASUC. SOURCES OF DATA: The information in this review is derived from data published in peer- reviewed academic journals and registered clinical trials. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Management of acute severe colitis requires a multidisciplinary approach with early initiation with steroids and timely escalation of treatment to either medical rescue therapy or surgery. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Balancing the risks of delayed surgery vs. optimizing medical therapy, including accelerated dosing schedules for biologics, remains ambiguous. GROWING POINTS: The position on newer molecules like Janus Kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, is a growing area with early real-world data showing promise for steroid refractory ASUC. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Developing predictive biomarkers and clinical risk scores for personalized rescue therapy selection is an evolving area of research.

Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Using E-health Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Technological advances have provided innovative, adaptive, and responsive models of care for inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. We conducted a systematic review to compare e-health interventions with standard care in management of IBD. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for randomised, controlled trials [RCT] comparing e-health interventions with standard care for patients with IBD. Effect measures were standardised mean difference [SMD], odds ratio [OR], or rate ratio [RR], calculated using the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and random-effects models. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs [n = 3111; 1754 e-health and 1357 controls] were identified. The difference in disease activity scores (SMD 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.09-0.28) and clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.61) between e-health interventions and standard care were not statistically significant. Higher quality of life [QoL] [SMD 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.35) and IBD knowledge [SMD 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.36] scores were noted in the e-health group, and self-efficacy levels [SMD -0.09, 95% CI: -0.22-0.05] were comparable. E-health patients had fewer office [RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93] and emergency [RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51- 0.95] visits, with no statistically significant difference in endoscopic procedures, total health care encounters, corticosteroid use, and IBD related hospitalisation or surgery. The trials were judged to be at high risk of bias or to have some concerns for disease remission. The certainty of evidence was moderate or low. CONCLUSION: E-health technologies may have a role in value-based care in IBD.