Introduction

Among patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID), food intake is often identified as a symptom trigger. Common foods known to cause gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms include fatty foods (1) and fermentable carbohydrates (FODMAPs) (2), but the evidence is limited and may vary among different FGID.

Aims & Methods

The aim of this study was to explore if certain foods are considered more tolerable, and which specific foods are identified as triggers of GI symptoms among participants with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia (FD). An online survey was conducted including n=537 participants from the Swedish general population with symptoms compatible with a functional bowel disorder. The survey included questions on demographics and an adapted food frequency questionnaire that assessed intakes of 38 different food items or aggregated food groups. For each food, participants had to answer whether or not they considered the specific food to be a trigger for GI symptoms.

Results

Among the respondents, a total of 220 participants with IBS and/or FD (mean age 34.7 years, body mass index 26.8 kg/m², women: 78.2%) were included in the analyses, of whom n=128 fulfilled criteria for FD and n=136 for IBS. Foods that were least commonly reported to cause GI symptoms included hard bread, fish and shellfish, berries, nuts, and seeds (Figure). The most frequently reported food triggers included pizza, crisps, confectionery, candy, ice cream, white bread, dairy, french fries, pie, and sausages. White bread, more often than whole grain bread, was reported to cause GI symptoms. Most vegetables and fruits were well tolerated in FD. A few FODMAP-rich vegetables, such as onion, garlic, beans, lentils, cauliflower and cabbage were more often reported as food triggers in IBS compared with FD. Having overlapping IBS and FD increased the prevalence of foods that were considered to cause symptoms.

Conclusion

In individuals with IBS and/or FD, foods traditionally associated with a healthy dietary pattern were less commonly reported to cause GI symptoms, whereas foods associated with western food/junk food were more commonly reported to cause GI symptoms. Promoting healthy food choices seem compatible with dietary treatment of patients with IBS and FD.

References

1, Feinle-Bisset C, Azpiroz F. Dietary and lifestyle factors in functional dyspepsia. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2013 Mar;10(3):150-7.
2. van Lanen AS, de Bree A, Greyling A. Efficacy of a low-FODMAP diet in adult irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European journal of nutrition. 2021 Sep;60:3505-22.

Introduction

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as an important therapeutic class for the management of several immune-mediated conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but they are associated with several side effects. A renewed attention to the safety profile of this drug class has been driven by increasing reports of JAK inhibitor-induced acneiform eruptions seen in clinical trials and real-life practice.

Aims & Methods

We aimed to investigate the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes of this condition in patients with IBD. This was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study that consecutively enrolled patients with IBD who were treated with JAK inhibitors and subsequently developed acne. The primary objective was to evaluate the clinical characteristics of acne presentation. Secondary objectives included determining acne prevalence, assessing its impact on quality of life, and evaluating the effectiveness of treatments.

Results

Of the 2,183 JAK inhibitor-treated patients with IBD screened, 272 developed acne and were included in the study. The crude prevalence rates of acne were 15.9% for upadacitinib, 4.3% for tofacitinib, and 1.9% for filgotinib, with dose-dependent relationships observed for upadacitinib and tofacitinib. Acne predominantly affected patients aged 30–50 years, with most cases being mild to moderate in severity. Acneiform eruptions most frequently involved the face (89%), followed by the back (33%) and chest (27%). Lesion characteristics were documented in 159 patients; papules (82%), pustules (52%), and comedones (42%) were the most frequently reported. In contrast, nodules (19%) and cysts (18%) – features associated with more severe disease – were less commonly observed. Among the 213 patients with available time-to-onset data, the median time to acne onset following JAK inhibitor initiation was 47 days (IQR: 28–98 days). Patients with a previous history of acne vulgaris were significantly more likely to develop severe drug-induced acne (p<0.0001). Although corticosteroids are known to contribute to acne, our data did not demonstrate an association between concomitant steroid use and increased acne severity. There was also no difference in time to onset or resolution of acne between the steroid-treated and non-steroid treated groups. A third of patients reported a negative impact on psychosocial well-being, and 40% required pharmacological intervention. Topical therapies were required for 106 patients (39%), with 52 (49%) showing acne improvement or resolution. Systemic oral agents were required for 38 patients (14%), including 25 patients who did not respond or had a partial response to topical therapies. Antibiotics were prescribed to 29 patients (most commonly from the tetracycline class), leading to acne improvement or resolution in 14 patients (48%). Oral isotretinoin was required for 8 patients (3%) and was effective in all but one patient. Eighteen percent of patients who developed acne (2.2% of total cohort) required a JAK inhibitor dose reduction or discontinuation, although most did not have severe disease.

Conclusion

This study is the first to characterise this adverse event in JAK inhibitor-treated patients with IBD and presents the largest cohort of JAK inhibitor-induced acne cases to date across all immune-mediated diseases. JAK inhibitor-induced acne is a common adverse effect resulting in significant psychological burden. Early identification, proactive counselling, and timely interventions, such as dose reduction or referral to dermatology, are crucial in managing this side effect.

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

Introduction

‘Biologic therapies’ are the mainstay treatment for moderate to severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), resulting in fewer hospitalisations, adequate treatment response and mucosal healing. ^[1] Adalimumab, Golimumab, Ustekinumab & Risankizumab are administered subcutaneously (SC), Infliximab and Vedolizumab are administered intravenously (IV), and have additionally been available SC since 2020. SC Infliximab was used during the pandemic to limit exposure to hospitals & reduce risk of Covid-19, ^[2] as well as for convenience.

Aims & Methods

We explore patient’s views of IV and SC administered treatments via a paper-based survey for those patients who were on IV treatment when attending for infusions, and a telephone survey on patients with IBD who have been on SC treatment.

Results

IV survey

• 122 completed the survey.
• 50/122 (41.0%) were on Vedolizumab (41.0%), 64 (52.5%) Infliximab, 8 (6.6%) others / didn’t specify.
• 25/120 (20.8%) had been on IV therapy for 2-6 months, 17 (14.2%) for 7-12 months, 29 (24.2%) for 1-3 years, 21 (17.5%) for 3-5 years, 21 (17.5%) for >5 years.
• 107/120 (89.2%) rated treatments as easy, 13 (10.8%) intermediate, 0 difficult.
• 25/112 (22.3%) were previously on SC injections. Of this group: 15/24 (60.0%) favoured the IV route, 9 (36.0%) favoured the SC route.
• 4/15 who favoured the IV route “did not like to inject themselves” or “found it difficult”. 3/15 preferred IV route as they were being monitored.
• 104/110 (94.5%) attended all scheduled blood tests, 4 (3.6%) attended most of them
• 106/109 (97.2%) attended all OP appointments, 2 (1.8%) attend most
• 91/111 (82.0%) had no concerns, 10 (9.0%) had concerns over side effects (SE)
• 31/104 (29.8%) reported SE.
• 6/29 (20.7%) stated SE not affected their quality of life (QoL), 12 (41.4%) little impact QoL, 10 (34.5%) moderate impact, 1 (3.4%) severe impact.
• 96/105 (91.4%) would recommend IV route

• 106/113 (93.8%) completed the survey..
• 54/106 patients were on Adalimumab (50.9%), 24 (22.6%) Ustekinumab, 13 (12.2%) Vedolizumab , 13 (12.3%) Infliximab, 2 (1.9%) Golimumab
• 10/106 (9.4%) for 1-6 months, 21 (19.8%) for 6-12 months, 33 (31.1%) for 1-3yrs, 21 (19.8%) for 3-5 years and 20 (18.9%) for >5 years.
• 89/106 (83.9%) rated treatment administration as easy, 10 (9.4%) intermediate, 2 (1.9%) difficult
• 59/106 (55.7%) were previously on IV infusions. Of this group: 43/59 (72.9%) favoured the SC route, 8 (13.6%) favoured IV, and 8 (13.6%) no preference.
• 24/43 who favoured who favoured SC route stated ‘convenient”, “easy”, “not have to attend hospital” as reasons.
• 86/106 (81.1%) attended all scheduled blood tests, 5 (4.7%) attended most of them,
• 102/106 (96.2%) attended all OP appointments, 3 (2.8%) attend most,
• 68/106 (64.2%) had no concerns, 21 (19.81%) concerned about fewer face to face episodes
• 40/106 (37.7%) reported SE. 8 (20%) skin reactions
• 11/40 (27.5%) stated SE not affected their quality of life (QoL), 14 (35%) little impact QoL, 9 (22.5%) moderate impact, 6 (15%) severe impact.
• 87/106 (82.1%) recommend SC route

Conclusion

The survey found that both IV and SC treatments were easy to administer for the vast majority (89.2% & 84.9%), For patients on SC therapy who previously had IV infusions, 75.6% preferred SC as “convenient”, “easy” and “no (need to attend) hospital”. For patients on IV therapy who previously had SC, 60.0% preferred IV as “did not ned to self inject / found it difficult”, and “preferred monitoring”. Overall there are high levels of satisfaction with 91.4% of patients on IV treatment, and 82.1% of patients on SC treatment recommend their current route of administration.

References

1. E J Mao, G S Hazlewood, G G Kaplan, L Peyrin-Biroulet, and A N Ananthakrishnan, Systematic review with meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of immunosuppressants and biologics for reducing hospitalisation and surgery in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 45: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13847
2. P J Smith, L Critchley, D Storey, et al, Efficacy and Safety of Elective Switching from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Infliximab [CT-P13]: A Multicentre Cohort Study, Journal of Crohn's and Colitis, Volume 16, Issue 9, September 2022, Pages 1436-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac053