UEG's educational platform for gastroenterology education bringing recordings, courses, guidelines, and more together in one place.

UEG Week Berlin 2025 Recordings Gut Guide online

Rate for better recommendations!

Your feedback helps us show you more of what you like and less of what you dislike!

More of this!

We will show you more similar content.

Not for me!

We won't suggest this again.

Bookmark!

Save this content for later!

New to myUEG? Create an account! Log In with myUEG account

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

Free for all myUEG account holders. Your access level is set automatically based on your occupation. Medical professionals get full access to all content. If you are a non-medical user, you can only access UEG Week content from congresses you attended.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Introduction

Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis (ASUC) is a serious, potentially life-threatening condition. Hospital admission and prompt medical therapy with intravenous steroids is crucial, but rescue medical therapy with infliximab is frequently needed. Despite its frequency and relevance, there is no clear evidence about the optimal infliximab (IFX) dosing and timing in this context.

Aims & Methods

In a prospective multicentre, international cohort study, consecutive patients hospitalized for ASUC between 2/2019-1/2020 were included. The primary outcome was surgery during the first 90 days after admission (failure of medical treatment). For this analysis we identified and analyzed all patients receiving IFX as rescue therapy during the index admission. We used descriptive statistics along with non-parametric tests to determine patient characteristics and outcomes between IFX usage patterns.

Results

A total of 823 patients from 123 centers in 32 countries in five continents were included (median age 39 years [IQR, 28-54], 56% male, 64% non-smokers). IFX was started in 159 patients (19%) after a median of 6 days (IQR, 4-8) after starting steroids, with 27% after >7 days. The initial IFX dose was mostly 5 mg/kg (74%), followed by 10 mg/kg (23%). The overall response was considered adequate in 74%, this was numerically superior among those receiving 10 mg/kg (83% vs 74%, p=0.5). In 41 patients a second dose of IFX (26%) was administered during the admission. After a first dose of IFX 5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, most patients received a subsequent infusion with the same dosing (92% and 79%, respectively). Colectomy was performed in 35 patients (22%), without statistically significant differences between those with an initial dose of 5 or 10 mg/kg (23% vs 19%, p=0.6).

Conclusion

IFX is a relevant rescue therapy, required in around one in five patients with ASUC. Most patients receive 5 mg/kg, and this is usually followed by the same dosage. Still a proportion of patients receive higher doses with 10 mg/kg, but colectomy risk remains similar between both groups.

INFLIXIMAB TREATMENT STRATEGIES IN ACUTE SEVERE ULCERATIVE COLITIS: A PROSPECTIVE, MULTINATIONAL STUDY

Iago Rodríguez-Lago 1, Matteo Frasson 2, Thomas Pinkey 3, Susan Blackwell 4, Krisztina Barbara Gecse 5, Christianne Johanna Buskens 6, Charles H. Knowles 7, Oded Zmora 8, Matthew James Brookes 9, Gionata Fiorino 10, Pilar Nos Mateu 11, Gaetano Gallo 12, Francesco Pata 13, Azmina Verjee 14, Salvo Leone 15, Gianluca Pellino 16, Javier Gisbert 17

1 Hospital Universitario de Galdakao, Bilbao, Spain

2 Research Institute La Fe & University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain

3 Queen Elizabeth Hospital-University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

4 Patient representative, Liverpool, United Kingdom

5 Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands

6 Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands

7 Queen Mary University of London School of Medicine NCBRSI, London, United Kingdom

8 Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel

9 Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom

10 RCCS Ospedale San Raffaele and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milano, Italy

11 Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, Spain

12 Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

13 Nicola Giannettasio Hospital, Corigliano Rossano, Italy

14 Patient representative, London, United Kingdom

15 AMICI Italia (Associazione nazionale per le Malattie Infiammatorie Croniche dell'Intestino), Rome, Italy

16 Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

17 Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa and CIBEREHD, Madrid, Spain

Conference

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

IBD

Submission format

Abstract

Session

Optimising ulcerative colitis therapy (Posters)

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

UEG Podcast Episode

Journal Podcast

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Episode 6: UEG Journal October Spotlight

Mohsan Subhani, Maria Manuela Estevinho

Topics

Endoscopy Hepatobiliary IBD Pancreas

Published

2025

UEG Podcast Episode

UEG Podcast

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Best of UEG Week - IBD with Bel Kok

Bel Klaartje Kok, Pradeep Mundre

Topics

IBD

Published

2025

UEG Podcast Episode

UEG Podcast

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Coeliac disease with David Sanders

David S. Sanders, Pradeep Mundre

Topics

Small Intestine & Nutrition

Published

2026

UEG Standards and Guidelines

Clinical Practice Guideline

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Abstract

Background

Hereditary adenomatous polyposis syndromes, including familial adenomatous polyposis and other rare adenomatous polyposis syndromes, increase the lifetime risk of colorectal and other cancers.

Methods

A team of 38 experts convened to update the 2008 European recommendations for the clinical management of patients with adenomatous polyposis syndromes. Additionally, other rare monogenic adenomatous polyposis syndromes were reviewed and added. Eighty-nine clinically relevant questions were answered after a systematic review of the existing literature with grading of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Two levels of consensus were identified: consensus threshold (≥67% of voting guideline committee members voting either ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ during the Delphi rounds) and high threshold (consensus ≥ 80%).

Results

One hundred and forty statements reached a high level of consensus concerning the management of hereditary adenomatous polyposis syndromes.

Conclusion

These updated guidelines provide current, comprehensive, and evidence-based practical recommendations for the management of surveillance and treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis patients, encompassing additionally MUTYH-associated polyposis, gastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach and other recently identified polyposis syndromes based on pathogenic variants in other genes than APC or MUTYH. Due to the rarity of these diseases, patients should be managed at specialized centres.

Updated European guidelines for clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), gastric adenocarcinoma, proximal polyposis of the stomach (GAPPS) and other rare adenomatous polyposis syndromes

Gloria Zaffaroni

Publisher

European Society for Coloproctology

Guideline

Clinical Practice Guideline

Topics

Surgery Colorectal

Citation

BJS, Volume 111, Issue 5, May 2024

Published

2024

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Introduction

The therapeutic landscape for ulcerative colitis (UC) is rapidly evolving, with an increasing number of biologic agents available.

Aims & Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) data on biologic therapies for achieving key endoscopic and histologic endpoints in moderate to severe UC. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature was conducted through November 2024. Separate meta-analyses were performed for induction and maintenance. A random-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and confidence in estimates was evaluated with the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

Results

We included 40 RCTs (13 therapies , 14,369 patients). Thirty-two trials provided data in induction phase and twenty-eight in maintenance phase. During induction phase, all biologic therapies except for mirikizumab and filgotinib 100 mg demonstrated superiority over placebo (RR 2.02, 95% CI:1.76–2.31, I²=72%) for endoscopic improvement. Upadacitinib showed the highest efficacy (RR 5.53, 95% CI: 3.78-8.09). In biologic-naive patients and in patients with no previous biologic failure status upadacitinib 30mg had the highest efficacy (RR 4.07, 95% CI:2.69-6.16). In biologic-exposed patients or those with previous biologic failure, upadacitinib 30mg also showed the greatest benefit (RR 10.52, 95% CI:4.55-24.34). For induction of mucosal healing, all interventions were superior to placebo (RR 2.95, 95% CI:2.11–4.13,I²=61%), except for filgotinib 100 mg. Risankizumab showed the highest efficacy (RR 10.25, 95% CI:2.49-42.11). In maintenance phase, all therapies showed superiority over placebo for endoscopic improvement. Upadacitinib showed the highest efficacy (RR 4.18, 95% CI: 2.79–6.27). In biologic-naïve patients or those without prior biologic failure, all interventions—except filgotinib 100 mg and vedolizumab—were significantly superior to placebo, with etrasimod showing the highest efficacy (RR 3.12, 95% CI: 1.79–5.43). Among biologic-exposed patients or those with prior biologic failure, upadacitinib, mirikizumab, ustekinumab, etrasimod, tofacitinib, and risankizumab 180 mg were significantly superior to placebo. Upadacitinib showed the highest efficacy (RR 7.58, 95% CI: 3.42–16.8). For mucosal healing all therapies were superior to placebo, except for risankizumab. Upadacitinib showed the highest efficacy (RR 4.01 ,95% CI: 1.81–8.87). In biologic-naïve patients or those without prior biologic failure, only etrasimod, mirikizumab, upadacitinib 30 mg and subcutaneous infliximab were significantly superior to placebo, with upadacitinib showing the highest efficacy (RR 3.02, 95% CI: 1.18–7.71). Among biologic-exposed patients or those with prior biologic failure, only etrasimod, mirikizumab, and upadacitinib were significantly superior to placebo, with etrasimod demonstrating the highest efficacy (RR 9.45, 95% CI: 1.31–68.36).

Conclusion

Biologic and small-molecule therapies demonstrated substantial efficacy in achieving key endoscopic and histologic endpoints in moderate to severe UC. Upadacitinib consistently showed the highest efficacy across both induction and maintenance phases. Stratified analyses revealed enhanced response rates in biologic-naïve patients, supporting early initiation of advanced therapies. Our findings highlight the importance of individualised treatment strategies and the urgent need for standardised endpoint definitions to enhance comparability across future trials.