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 Standards and Guidelines

Clinical Standard

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.

Abstract

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

Keywords: capsule endoscopy; Crohn disease; endoscopy; gastroenterology; inflammatory bowel disease

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

Cristiano Spada, Deirdre McNamara, Edward J Despott, Samuel Nathan Adler, Brooks D Cash, Ignacio Fernández-Urién, Hrvoje Ivekovic, Martin Keuchel, Mark McAlindon, Jean Christophe Saurin, Simon Panter, Cristina Bellisario, Silvia Minozzi, Carlo Senore, Cathy Bennett, Michael Bretthauer, Mario Dinis-Ribeiro, Dirk Domagk, Cesare Hassan, Michal Filip Kaminski, Colin J. Rees, Roland Valori, Raf Bisschops, Matt Rutter

Publisher

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Guideline

Clinical Standard

Topics

Endoscopy Small Intestine & Nutrition

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2019, Vol. 7(5) 614–641

Published

2019

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.

Introduction

Pilonidal disease (PD) is a benign condition affecting the natal cleft in young men and women usually between the ages of 20 and 40 years. Despite an increasing incidence, there is no widely accepted consensus that standardizes the management of this disease. This guideline may act as a resource for patients wanting to gain a comprehensive overview of treatment options. However, primarily, the goal of these guidelines is to provide an internationally collaborated set of recommendations for clinicians and healthcare professionals who treat patients with PD.

European Society of Coloproctology guidelines for the management of pilonidal disease

Dotun Ojo, Gaetano Gallo

Publisher

European Society for Coloproctology

Guideline

Clinical Practice Guideline

Topics

Surgery Colorectal

Citation

BJS, Volume 111, Issue 10, October 2024, znae237

Published

2024

UEG Standards and Guidelines

Position Paper

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

Objectives

Videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) remain the gold standard for the instrumental assessment of oropharyngeal swallowing disorders alongside flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), requiring a high standard of quality and correct implementation. The current best practice position statements aim to guide the clinical practice of VFSS in individuals experiencing swallowing disorders.

Materials and methods

An international expert consensus panel with expertise in oropharyngeal dysphagia, comprised of radiologists, speech-language therapists, otolaryngologists, and other professionals in the field, convened by the European Society of Swallowing Disorders (ESSD) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), developed best practice position statements. They were established using an online Delphi methodology involving an online panel discussion and item preparation and three consecutive rounds. Consensus was reached when ≥ 80% of the participants agreed on a specific recommendation.

Results

Eighteen best practice position statements were formulated, thereby establishing standard recommendations on the technical performance of VFSS. They cover VFSS planning, correct implementation, documentation, radiation protection, equipment and maintenance, and education and training.

Conclusion

These position statements summarise the panel’s deliberations and recommendations in performing VFSS, representing the agreed consensus of experts from ESSD and ESGAR. They provide a structured framework for optimising and standardising the performance of VFSS in patients with swallowing disorders.

Key Points

Question Significant regional and national differences in clinical practice when performing VFSS highlight the need for interdisciplinary recommendations to optimise patient care.

Findings Eighteen statements were developed by representatives of the ESSD and the ESGAR.

Clinical relevance These best practice position statements on the technical performance of VFSS may serve as a basis for standardising the procedure and ensuring high-quality service.

ESSD–ESGAR best practice position statements on the technical performance of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies in adult patients with swallowing disorders

Martina Scharitzer

Publisher

European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology

Guideline

Position Paper

Topics

Radiology & Imaging

Citation

Eur Radiol 35, 3169–3180 (2025)

Published

2024

UEG Presentation

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.

Predict and manage the early phase

Enrique de-Madaria 1

1 Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis-ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Pancreas

Session

Acute pancreatitis

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

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.

Main recommendations

1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

3 When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.
Very low quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

4 Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

5 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.
Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

6 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.
Very low quality evidence.

7 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.
Very low quality evidence.

8 ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

9 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp >= 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.
Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 – 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

Cristiano Spada

Publishers

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology

Guideline

Clinical Practice Guideline

Topics

Endoscopy Radiology & Imaging

Citation

Endoscopy 2020; 52(12): 1127-1141

Published

2020

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

Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) is characterized by a significant reduction in pancreatic exocrine activity within the intestine, impairing normal digestive processes⁽¹⁾. This condition results in malnutrition-related complications and a diminished quality of life. Faecal pancreatic elastase serves as an optimal biomarker for evaluating pancreatic function in individuals with PEI. Its high stability ensures that faecal pancreatic elastase is concentrated during intestinal transit, thereby accurately reflecting total pancreatic secretion. The BÜHLMANN fPELA^® turbo is a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) that is commercially available for the automated quantification of pancreatic elastase in faecal extracts using clinical chemistry analyzers. Additionally, BÜHLMANN has developed the Quantum Blue^® fPELA, a lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) designed for environments requiring lower sample volumes. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of both assays and compare them to a commercially available ELISA reference method.

Aims & Methods

A total of 189 symptomatic patients, comprising 82 non-PEI controls and 107 PEI-diagnosed patients, were utilized to compare the clinical performance of PETIA and LFIA against the ELISA reference assay. Sensitivity and specificity for both assays were determined using cutoffs of 100 μg/g and 200 μg/g.

Results

The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.809 for the BÜHLMANN fPELA^® turbo (optimal cut-off: 166 μg/g), 0.792 for the Quantum Blue^® fPELA (optimal cut-off: 109 μg/g), and 0.814 for the reference ELISA (optimal cut-off: 154 μg/g). At clinically relevant cut-offs of 100 μg/g and 200 μg/g, the BÜHLMANN fPELA^® turbo demonstrated sensitivity of 0.57 and 0.74, and specificity of 0.9 and 0.76, respectively. The Quantum Blue^® fPELA showed sensitivity of 0.62 and 0.71, and specificity of 0.93 and 0.74, respectively. The reference ELISA exhibited sensitivity of 0.64 and 0.73, and specificity of 0.87 and 0.70, respectively. A direct method comparison using at least 60 samples within the linear measuring range of all assays revealed a relative median difference in Bland-Altman analysis of 9.3% between the BÜHLMANN fPELA^® turbo and the reference ELISA, 10.8% between the ELISA and the Quantum Blue^® fPELA, and 11.0% between the PETIA and the LFIA.

Conclusion

The study demonstrated that both the BÜHLMANN fPELA^® turbo and the Quantum Blue^® fPELA exhibit strong diagnostic performance to detect PEI in symptomatic patient population and high concordance with the reference ELISA assay. The BÜHLMANN fPELA^® turbo, a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay, is an accurate, non-invasive, automated test ideal for large-scale determination of pancreatic elastase levels in faecal extracts. Meanwhile, the Quantum Blue^® fPELA rapid test is well-suited for smaller laboratories, offering a faster time to result compared to traditional ELISA methods, while offering a coequal clinical performance.

References

(1) Philips ME, et al. BMJ Open Gastro 2021; 8: e000643

Disclosure

Conflict of interest: CR, DT, HI, AT, MU, RT, MS, TS, SN and CG are employees of BÜHLMANN Laboratories AG

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF FECAL PANCREATIC ELASTASE QUANTIFICATION WITH A RAPID TEST AND AN AUTOMATED TURBIDIMETRIC IMMUNOASSAY

Christian Reinhard 1, Daniela Trapani-Vondran 1, Raluca Turcu 1, Hüseyin Ilgü 1, Alina Thürig 1, Marie-Eve Ueberschlag 1, Michael Schneider 1, Thomas Schuster 1, Stefan Neu 1, Luise Voigtländer 2, Helmut Laumen 2, Jonas Rosendahl 2, Christian-Benedikt Gerhold 1

1 BÜHLMANN Laboratories AG, Schönenbuch, Switzerland

2 University Clinic Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Germany

Conference

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Pancreas

Submission format

Abstract

Session

PANCREAS (Posters)

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

UEG Presentation

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

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF OBEFAZIMOD IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATELY TO SEVERELY ACTIVE ULCERATIVE COLITIS: RESULTS FROM TWO, PHASE 3, RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, 8-WEEK INDUCTION TRIALS (ABTECT-1 &AMP; 2)

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

Introduction

Obefazimod (Obe) is an oral, once-daily (QD), small molecule which enhances expression of microRNA-124 and has been studied in two Phase 2 induction trials and subsequent open-label maintenance studies [1-3] in patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Here we report efficacy and safety of two Phase 3, 8-week, induction trials in adult pts with UC from ABTECT-1 [NCT05507203] and ABTECT-2 [NCT05507216].

Aims & Methods

The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ABTECT trials enrolled pts with moderate-to-severe UC (defined as modified Mayo score (MMS)≥ 5, with rectal bleeding sub-score (RBS) ≥ 1 and centrally read endoscopic score >2) who had inadequate response, loss of response, or intolerance to at least one prior therapy (with no upper limit), including corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, biologics, S1P receptor modulators and/or JAK inhibitors. Pts were randomized 2:1:1 to Obe 50 mg QD (Obe-50), Obe 25 mg QD (Obe-25) or placebo (PBO) for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission (per MMS) and secondary endpoints included clinical response, endoscopic improvement, symptomatic remission, and histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI).

Results

1272 pts were randomized and treated in ABTECT-1 (636) and ABTECT-2 (636). In both trials, baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between groups; 45.3% and 49.3% of pts had inadequate response to 1 or more advanced therapies. A significantly higher proportion of pts receiving Obe-50 (ABTECT-1:21.7%, ABTECT-2: 19.8%) versus PBO (2.5% and 6.3%) achieved clinical remission (Obe-50-PBO difference: ABTECT-1: 19.3%, p<0.0001; ABTECT-2: 13.4%, p=0.0001) and met all key secondary endpoints in both trials. A significantly higher proportion of pts receiving Obe-25 versus PBO achieved clinical remission (Obe-25-PBO difference: 21.4%, p<0.0001) and met all key secondary endpoints in ABTECT-1. In a pooled analysis, both Obe-50 and Obe-25 met all primary and secondary endpoints with nominal significance (p<0.0001) (Table). The overall rate of serious adverse events and treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to study drug discontinuation for pts treated with Obe were similar to PBO. Proportions of pts who reported at least one TEAE in ABTECT-1 were 59.4%, 46.9%, and 53.2% for Obe-50, Obe-25, and PBO, respectively. For ABTECT2, TEAEs occurred in 61.0%, 50.9%, and 48.4% for Obe-50, Obe-25, and PBO, respectively. The most frequent TEAE was headache (Obe-50: 20.8-25.8%; Obe-25: 14.5-15.6%; PBO: 5.7). The headaches were mild, transient, short in duration and not a barrier to treat as evidenced by a low discontinuation rate of 0-1.6%. No signal was observed for serious, severe, or opportunistic infections or malignancies.

Table: 8-week induction efficacy of obefazimod in ABTECT-1 and ABTECT-2 Phase 3 studies, and pooled ABTECT-1 and ABTECT-2^‡

	ABTECT-1					ABTECT-2					Pooled ABTECT-1 and ABTECT-2
Efficacy Endpoints at week 8, % (n)	PBO N= 158	Obe-25 N= 160	Obe-50 N= 318	Between group diff. Obe-25 vs PBO	Between group diff. Obe-50 vs PBO	PBO N= 159	Obe-25 N= 159	Obe-50 N= 318	Between group diff. Obe-25 vs PBO	Between group diff. Obe-50 vs PBO	PBO N= 317	Obe-25 N= 319	Obe-50 N= 636	Between group diff. Obe-25 vs PBO	Between group diff. Obe-50 vs PBO
Clinical remission	2.5 (4)	23.8 (38)	21.7 (69)	21.4 p<0.0001	19.3 p<0.0001	6.3 (10)	11.3 (18)	19.8 (63)	5.1 p=0.1034^¥	13.4 p=0.0001	4.4 (14)	17.6 (56)	20.8 (132)	13.2^a p<0.0001	16.4^a p<0.0001
Clinical response	28.5 (45)	65.6 (105)	61.0 (194)	37.2 p<0.0001	32.6 p<0.0001	33.3 (53)	53.5 (85)	63.2 (201)	20.1 p=0.0002^¥	29.6 p<0.0001	30.9 (98)	59.6 (190)	62.1 (395)	28.6^a p<0.0001	31.2^a p<0.0001
Endoscopic improvement†	5.7 (9)	37.5 (60)	33.3 (106)	32.0 p<0.0001	27.8 p<0.0001	10.1 (16)	22.0 (35)	35.5 (113)	12.0 p=0.0029^¥	25.4 p<0.0001	7.9 (25)	29.8 (95)	34.4 (219)	21.9^a p<0.0001	26.6^a p<0.0001
HEMI	3.2 (5)	23.8 (38)	23.0 (73)	20.7 p<0.0001	20.0 p<0.0001	7.5 (12)	13.2 (21)	23.9 (76)	5.7 p=0.0932^¥	16.4 p<0.0001	5.4 (17)	18.5 (59)	23.4 (149)	13.2^a p<0.0001	18.2^a p<0.0001
Symptomatic remission*†	17.7 (28)	42.5 (68)	41.2 (131)	24.9 p<0.0001	23.7 p<0.0001	22.0 (35)	33.3 (53)	40.3 (128)	11.4 p=0.0227	18.0 p<0.0001	19.9 (63)	37.9 (121)	40.7 (259)	18.1^a p<0.0001	21.0^a p<0.0001
NRI is used for subjects with missing outcome at Week 8 and subjects reporting any IE prior to Week 8 % Difference is for Obe minus placebo and is based on estimated common risk difference using the Mantel-Haenszel weights adjusting for the randomization stratification factors: inadequate response to advanced therapies (yes/no), baseline oral corticosteroids usage (yes/no), and region (Japan/rest of world) [ABTECT-2 only]. p-values are two sided. ^a: for pooled analysis, all p-values are nominal Clinical remission: stool frequency sub-score (SFS) ≤1, rectal bleeding sub-score (RBS) = 0 and endoscopic sub-score ≤1 Clinical response: decrease from baseline in the MMS ≥ 2 points and ≥30% from baseline, plus a decrease in RBS ≥ 1 or an absolute RBS ≤ 1 Endoscopic improvement: endoscopic sub-score ≤1 Symptomatic remission: RBS=0, SFS <1 HEMI: combination of histologic improvement (Geboes histologic score ≤3.1) and endoscopic improvement (endoscopy sub-score ≤1) * Symptomatic remission was an “other secondary” endpoint, not multiplicity controlled, for the FDA protocol † Endoscopic improvement/symptomatic remission were co-primary endpoints for the EMA protocol and were met by both doses in both trials ‡ Hierarchical testing strategy was used starting with 50mg for the primary endpoint followed by the key secondary endpoints; the 25mg was subsequently tested for the primary endpoint followed by the key secondary endpoints. ¥ 25mg did not meet the primary endpoint at week 8 in ABTECT-2 in the FDA testing protocol, therefore p-values for key secondary endpoints for the 25mg arm in ABTECT-2 are nominal

Conclusion

In both ABTECT induction trials, primary and secondary endpoints were met; obe treatment led to statistically significant improvements in clinical, endoscopic, symptomatic and combined endoscopic-histologic endpoints at week 8. Obe was well tolerated with no new safety signals identified.

References

Vermeire S, et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2023; 17: 1689-1697
Vermeire S, et al. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2022; 7: 1024-1035.
Vermeire S, et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2025 ; 19 : jjaf074

Disclosure

Authors reports following potential conflicts of interest:
BES: Abbvie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca, Biolojic Design, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Equillium, Enthera, Enveda Biosciences, Evommune, Ferring, Fzata, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Imhotex, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck & Co., Microba, Microbiotica, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutics, MRM Health, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Janssen, Palisade Bio, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Therapeutics, Reistone Biopharma, Sanofi, Sorriso Therapeutics, Spyre Therapeutics, Takeda, Target RWE,Teva, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, Trex Bio, Union Therapeutics, Ventyx Biosciences.
SV: AbbVie, Abivax, AbolerIS Pharma, AgomAb, Alimentiv, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avaxia, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CVasThera, Cytoki Pharma, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech-Roche, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Imidomics, Janssen, J&J, Lilly, Materia Prima, MiroBio, Morphic, MrMHealth, Mundipharma, MSD, Pfizer, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, Tillots Pharma AG, Zealand Pharma.
LPB: Abbvie, Abivax, Adacyte, Alimentiv, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Banook, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Connect Biopharm, Cytoki Pharma, Enthera, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GSK, IAC Image Analysis, Index Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Mopac, Morphic, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Oncodesign Precision Medicine, ONO Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeuthics, Pandion Therapeuthics, Par' Immune, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Satisfay, Takeda, Telavant, Theravance, Thermo Fischer, Tigenix, Tillots, Viatris, Vectivbio, Ventyx, Ysopia.
SD: AbbVie, Ferring, Hospira, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, MSD, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer Inc, Tigenix, UCB Pharma, Vifor, Biogen, Celgene, Allergan, Celltrion, Sandoz, Boehringer Ingelheim.
PSD: Abbvie, Abivax, Adiso, Alimentiv, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech, Geneoscopy, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda.
MD: Abbvie, Abivax, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Meyer Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Inc, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
HT: Abbvie, Abivax, Dr Falk Pharma, ferring, Galapagos, Microbiotica, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda.
BS: AbbVie, Abivax, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Endpoint Health, Falk, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Landos, Materia Prima, PredictImmune, Pfizer, and Takeda; AlfaSigma, CED Service GmbH, MSD, Ferring, Galapagos, Tr1x bio
TH: Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, EA pharma Co. Ltd., AbbVie GK, JIMRO Co. Ltd., Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Boston Scientific Corporation, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Pfizer Inc., Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abivax.
XT: Celltrion, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Takeda, Alpha Sigma, Dr. Falk, Abivax, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, MSD, Pfizer, Tillotts, and Thabor Therapeutics.
RA: AbbVie, Abivax, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, Johnson&Johnson, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda Pharma
US: AbbVie, Abivax, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Roche,Takeda Pharmaceuticals
AA: AbbVie, Abivax, AG Pharma, Alfa Sigma, Astra Zeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Enthera, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Giuliani, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Novartis, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Sandoz, Takeda, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Tillots Pharma
FB: AbbVie, Amgen, Eurogenerics, J&J, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer Inc, Takeda, Celgene, Fresenius Kabi, Sandoz
DTR: Abbvie, Abivax SA, Altrubio, Athos Therapeutics, Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Connect BioPharma, Eli Lilly & Co., Genentech (Roche) Inc., Iterative Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Odyssey Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Spyre, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Vedanta Biosciences, and Ventyx.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF OBEFAZIMOD IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATELY TO SEVERELY ACTIVE ULCERATIVE COLITIS: RESULTS FROM TWO, PHASE 3, RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, 8-WEEK INDUCTION TRIALS (ABTECT-1 &AMP; 2)

Bruce E. Sands 1, Silvio Danese 2, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet 3, Marla C. Dubinsky 4, Tadakazu Hisamatsu 5, Herbert Tilg 6, Raja Atreya 7, Alessandro Armuzzi 8, Xavier Treton 9, Filip Baert 10, Ursula Seidler 11, Fabio Cataldi 12, Douglas Jacobstein 12, Christopher Rabbat 12, Kejia Shan 12, George DuVall 13, Britta Siegmund 14, Parambir Dulai 15, David T. Rubin 16, Severine Vermeire 17

1 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States

2 Vita-Salute San Raffaele University - IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

3 Nancy University Hospital, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

4 Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York City, United States

5 Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

6 Innsbruck Medical University - Department of Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University; Innsbruck/AT, Innsbruck, Austria

7 University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

8 IBD Center, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy

9 Groupe Hospitalier Prive Ambroise Pare – Hartmann - Institut des MICI, Neuilly sur Seine, France

10 Az Delta, Roeselare, Belgium

11 Medizinische Hochschule Klinik f. Gastroenterlogie, Hannover, Germany

12 Abivax, Paris, France

13 Tyler Research Institute, Tyler, United States

14 Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

15 Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, United States

16 University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, United States

17 University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Gut Microbiota IBD Immunology Mechanisms & Personalised Medicine

Submission format

Late-Breaking Abstract

Session

Late-breaking trials in IBD

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

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

Most popular content

Rate for better recommendations!