Introduction

While patients with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) often exhibit digestive manifestations, the underlying pathophysiology remains poorly understood. SCD could notably affect the intestinal mucosa through microvascular phenomena. Co-occurrence of SCD and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) has been reported in a very limited number of cases.
Our aim was to explore the intersection between SCD and IBD, particularly focusing on the impact of SCD on the natural course of IBD and the safety profile of drugs in this high-risk population.

Aims & Methods

We conducted a multicenter retrospective case-control study involving all adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and concomitant SCD and followed in 3 tertiary university hospitals. Each IBD patient with SCD was matched with up to 4 IBD patients without SCD, based on disease phenotype (UC or CD), sex, date of birth (±3 years), length of disease follow-up (±2 years), and year of diagnosis (±3 years). The primary outcome was a complicated disease course, defined by a composite outcome including intestinal resection, perianal surgery, and/or the need for advanced therapy.

Results

Overall, 125 patients with IBD were studied, including 24 with concomitant SCD and 101 controls. Of the 24 SCD patients, 5 (20.8%) had Crohn's disease (CD), 17 (70.8%) had ulcerative colitis (UC) and 2 (8.3%) had indeterminate colitis. 23/24 (95 %) had colonic involvement. Of note, 8 of 24 (33.3%) SCD patients had concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) compared to 1% of patients in the control group (p<0.001). Survival without a complicated course of the disease was estimated at 58.7 % (IC95[49.6-69.5]) at 5 years and at 38.9% (IC95[29.9-50.4]) at 10 years, for non-SCD patients, and at 63.3% (IC95[45.7-87.6]) and 52.7% (IC95[34.9-79.6]) at 5 and 10 years, respectively, for patients with SCD and IBD (p=0.36, Log-rank test). The survival without the need of advanced therapy was estimated at 66.1% (IC95[57.3-76.2]) at 5 years for non-SCD patient, and at 78.2% (IC95[63-97.2]) in patients with SCD patients (p=0.45).
Regarding the safety profile, 26.3% (5/19) of patients with SCD and 13.5 % (14/104) of controls experienced adverse events with advanced therapies (p=0.17, Fisher’s exact test). There was one reported vaso-occlusive crisis associated with the use of thiopurines. No death occurred during follow-up.

Conclusion

While patients with SCD and IBD displayed a distinctive phenotype characterized by nearly constant colonic involvement and a high prevalence of associated PSC, the disease natural history of IBD did not differ from that of patients without SCD. Given the notable prevalence of PSC, systematic screening with cholangio-MRI should be considered. Furthermore, no significant safety signal regarding the use of immunomodulator or advanced therapy was raised.

Introduction

Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is the most prevalent primary immune deficiency. Two-thirds of CVID patients present concomitant autoimmune disorders, including gastrointestinal autoimmune disease, other than being at risk for gastric cancer.

Aims & Methods

We aimed to assess the prevalence of autoimmune gastrointestinal manifestation in patients with CVID and to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EGDS for the screening of gastric pre-neoplastic lesions in a prospective cohort of patients with CVID. From June 2020 to June 2022, we prospectively enrolled patients with CVID diagnoses from a tertiary referral center. At enrollment, patients underwent a gastroenterological screening consisting of clinical evaluation and laboratory tests for the screening of autoimmune gastrointestinal disease. Moreover, all patients were proposed to undergo an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) regardless of the presence of GI symptoms to rule out pre-neoplastic gastric lesions and upper gastrointestinal disease in the presence of clinical suspicion. Patients with lower GI symptoms were proposed for colonoscopy.

Results

We included 94 patients with CVID, of whom 58 (61.7%) were females, with a mean age of 44.3 years old [standard deviation (SD) 16.3]. Overall, 12 patients (12.8%) were diagnosed with one or more gastrointestinal autoimmune diseases. Eight patients (8.5%) had ongoing therapy with intravenous immunoglobulin, while 24 (25.5%) with subcutaneous immunoglobulin. Four patients (4.3%) had a previous celiac disease diagnosis, with a negative serology at screening, and only 1 (1.1%) patient had evidence of villous atrophy and duodenal inflammation at the time of EGD. Three (3.2%) patients were diagnosed with autoimmune atrophic gastritis with negative serology and evidence at biopsies taken during EGD of atrophic gastritis. One patient (1.1%) was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, one patient (1.1%) with Crohn’s disease, and 5 patients (5.3%) with autoimmune hepatitis. Sixteen (16, 17%) patients reported inhalant allergy, 5 (5.3%) reported food allergy, and 26 (27.7%) reported drug-related allergy. Eleven (11.7) patients reported previous Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection, while only 1 (1.1%) patient was diagnosed with an ongoing HP infection. Fifty-eight patients underwent EGD, with endoscopic evidence of esophagitis in 8 patients (13.8%), gastritis in 45 (77.6%), and duodenal atrophy/inflammation in 23 (39.7%), of whom 41.4% had histological evidence of duodenal lymphocytosis. No patient was diagnosed with gastric cancer. Twenty-three patients underwent colonoscopy according to clinical indication, which showed at biopsy sampling ileal nodular follicular hyperplasia in 2 patients (8.7%), microscopic (lymphocytic) colitis in 2 patients (8.7%), ulcerative colitis in 1 (4.3%) and Crohn's disease in 1 (4.3%).

Conclusion

Celiac disease, atrophic gastritis, and autoimmune hepatitis were the most common gastrointestinal autoimmune overlaps of patients with CVID. Autoimmune gastrointestinal diseases in patients with CVID may pose a particular diagnostic challenge since autoantibodies are often absent. Five percent of CVID patients screened with EGD was found with a gastric pre-neoplastic lesion. Further data are needed to define the optimal timing of endoscopic follow-up of these patients for the screening of pre-neoplastic and neoplastic lesions.

Disclosure

Served as an advisory board member for EG Pharma
Received lecture grants from AlfaSigma, Bromatech, Echosens, Ferring, Mayoly Spindler and Schwabe Pharma.

Introduction

Approximately 15-19% of patients suffering from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have an eating disorder (ED) based on a screening score or dietary assessment (1). Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), a long-recognised eating disorder in children, is now recognised in adults. In a Swedish study, 13.2% of patients suffering from IBS reported severe dietary avoidance or restriction, suggestive of ARFID (2). A screening questionnaire for this disorder has recently been validated in French (NIAS-Fr, for Nine Item ARFID Screen in French) (3).

Aims & Methods

This study aims to assess the prevalence of ARFID in IBS in France, by comparing the NIAS-Fr questionnaire and the assessment by a specialised dietitian, and to look for links between its presence and the clinical phenotype of patients. This study was conducted between February and September 2024 in consecutive patients suffering from IBS and evaluated in a multidisciplinary day hospital structure. Clinical characteristics (age, gender, BMI, IBS subtype and its severity [IBS-SSS], presence of functional dyspepsia, diet and disease duration) and presence of ARFID (clinically or one abnormal NIAS-Fr subscale) were collected. A dietitian assessed the presence of “clinical ARFID”. The NIAS subscales allow for the diagnosis of patients as “picky eaters” (score ≥10), with “poor appetite” (score ≥9) and/or with a “fear of eating” (score ≥10). Patients with a history of ED diagnosed by a psychiatrist and/or an abnormal ED screening score (SCOFF ≥ 3 and/or global EDE-Q8 ≥ 4.0) were excluded from the analysis.

Results

Of the 95 patients with IBS according to Rome IV, 55 (57.9%) had at least one positive NIAS-Fr subscale, with 10 (10.5%) having an abnormal “picky eater” subscale, 16 (16.8%) an abnormal “poor appetite” subscale, and 49 (51.6%) an abnormal “fear of eating” subscale. Of these 95 patients, 15 were excluded from the analysis because of a history of eating disorders or an abnormal screening score. We therefore included 80 patients for analysis (77.5% women; mean age 48.5 ± 16.8 years, BMI 22.6 ± 4.6 kg/m²; 40.0% IBS-D, 38.8% IBS-C, and 20.0% IBS-M; 51.3% had associated dyspepsia; 62.5% were on a special diet at the time of assessment). The mean IBS-SSS score was 319.5 ± 88.2 points (severe forms in 61.2%). Among these 80 patients, 43 (53.8%) had at least one positive NIAS-Fr subscale, including 10.0% of "picky eaters," 16.3% of "poor appetite," and 48.8% of "fear of eating." Patients with at least one positive NIAS-Fr subscale had more frequent functional dyspepsia than those with a negative NIAS (65.1 vs. 35.1%, p = 0.013), but there were no differences in the other parameters assessed. According to the dietitian's assessment, 19 (23.8%) patients in our cohort had clinical ARFID, i.e., 44.2% of those with at least one positive NIAS-Fr subscale. In an IBS population, the specificity of the NIAS-Fr questionnaire for diagnosing clinical ARFID was 55.8% (95% CI: 41.1-69.6). None of the assessed parameters distinguished patients with and without clinical ARFID (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

ARFID symptoms are found in more than half of IBS patients treated in a tertiary care centre based on an abnormal NIAS-Fr screening questionnaire, after excluding other eating disorders. These patients frequently have associated functional dyspepsia and a normal BMI. Based on a dietary assessment, clinical ARFID is found in approximately one-quarter of IBS patients. The specificity of the NIAS-Fr in IBS is too low to allow a diagnosis of ARFID in this population.

References

(1) Wuestenberghs et coll. Intérêt du dépistage des troubles du comportement alimentaire au cours du syndrome de l’intestin irritable. JFHOD 2024 (number 000694)
(2) Melchior et coll. Food Avoidance and Restriction in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Relevance for Symptoms, Quality of Life and Nutrient Intake. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(6):1290-1298.e4.
(3) Van Ouytsel et coll. Translation of the nine item avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder screen (NIAS) questionnaire in French (NIAS-Fr). Neurogastroenterology & Motility 2024 ; 36 (4) : e14757.

Disclosure

Nothing to disclose.

Introduction

Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) offers a non-invasive alternative to colonoscopy for lower gastrointestinal (GI) investigations. However, its adoption is limited by lengthy reading times, reader fatigue, and variable diagnostic accuracy. These factors are often influenced by bowel preparation quality and completion rates. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy of polyp detection and reduce reading times in capsule endoscopy.

Aims & Methods

Objective(s): The primary aim is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Computer-Aided Detection (CADe) system (AiSPEED™) assisted CCE reading using full-video analysis in a real-world clinical setting. Secondary outcome was to assess a) non-inferiority compared to standard clinician reading in detecting polypoid lesions and b) mean reading time.
Methods: CESCAIL study is a multi-centre study of 14 UK centres recruited 720 participants between November 2021 and September 2024. Participants (prospectively and retrospectively enrolled ) included those ≥18 years referred for CCE under the urgent cancer pathway or for post-polypectomy surveillance. CCEs were performed using PillCam™ COLON 2 and analysed using AiSPEED™. CCE videos were evaluated by separate clinicians who provided standard readings, while AI-assisted reading included an AI-assisted pre-reader review and subsequent clinician validation.

Results

720 patients were enrolled, with 673 included in the final analysis. The capsule excretion rate before battery depletion was 77.1%, with adequate bowel preparation achieved at 78.1% (with standard) and 74.0% (with AI-assisted reading) (McNemar p=0.108). In the per-patient analysis, the diagnostic yield for detecting polyps was 63.6% (428/673) for standard reading and 70.6% (475/673) for AI-assisted reading, using the expert panel as the reference standard. These findings confirmed both non-inferiority (p<0.001) and superiority (p<0.001) of the AI-assisted reading. The diagnostic accuracy for detecting polyps requiring follow-up procedure (flexible sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy) was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98) for AI-assisted reading, compared to 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89–0.93) for standard reading (p<0.0001) (see Table 1). The mean reading time per video was 8.7 minutes for AI-assisted reading compared to 47.3 minutes for standard reading, representing a 5.4-fold reduction.

Conclusion

AI-assisted reading with AiSPEED™ offers the potential for greater accuracy in polyp detection and significantly reduced clinician reading times during CCE examination compared to standard reading methods.

References

1. Moen S, Vuik FER, Kuipers EJ, Spaander MCW. Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy-A Systematic Review. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(8).
2. Mota J, Joao Almeida M, Mendes F, Martins M, Ribeiro T, Afonso J, et al. A Comprehensive Review of Artificial Intelligence and Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Opportunities and Challenges. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024;14(18).
3. Spada C, Piccirelli S, Hassan C, Ferrari C, Toth E, Gonzalez-Suarez B, et al. AI-assisted capsule endoscopy reading in suspected small bowel bleeding: a multicentre prospective study. Lancet Digit Health. 2024;6(5):e345-e53.
4. Spada C, Hassan C, Galmiche JP, Neuhaus H, Dumonceau JM, Adler S, et al. Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2012;44(5):527-36.
5. PillCam COLON 2 for investigation of the colon through direct visualisation [Internet]. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE. August 2024. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-dg10083/documents/final-scope-2.

Disclosure

Hagen Wenzek serves as the CEO, and Elizabeth White is the Project Manager at Corporate Health International which owns the ​intellectual property of AiSPEED^TM