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

Audio / Video 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

Many individuals rapidly regain excess weight once they stop dieting. This phenomenon, which is commonly called yoyo-dieting, is a pattern of losing weight and then regaining it, placing individuals at greater risk for metabolic complications and obesity. There is some evidence that yoyo-dieting-induced obesity causes long-term alterations in the gut microbiome composition. There is also increasing evidence suggesting that diets high in resistant starch (RS) may positively improve gut health and metabolism.

Aims & Methods

This study aimed to investigate how yoyo-dieting affects gut health and whether supplementation with resistant starch could be a promising and effective weight management strategy.
Male and female C57BL/6 mice (n=48/sex, n=8/group) were allocated to six different diets for 20 weeks [control, high-fat (HFD), yoyo-diet (HFD interspaced with control every 5 weeks), control with RS, HFD with RS, and yoyo-diet with RS]. Metabolic measurements were performed, including body weight, glucose and insulin tolerance tests, adipose tissue, and organ weight. Liver and intestines were collected for structural changes assessed by histology. Epithelial barrier integrity was assessed in Ussing chambers. Faecal samples were collected for microbial profiling using 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing.

Results

Male mice fed a HFD with RS had significantly lower weight gain, liver mass, adipose tissue, and insulin tolerance compared to mice fed a HFD alone, while no significant differences were observed in females. No significant differences in glucose tolerance and intestinal permeability were observed across all diets and between sexes. Male mice had significantly higher alpha diversity and a different microbiota profile compared to female mice. Mice fed diets supplemented with RS had significantly lower alpha diversity and a different microbiota profile compared to mice fed without RS. Male and female mice have different microbiota profiles. Mice fed a HFD with RS have a similar microbiota profile to mice fed the control diet with RS. After changing diets (switching from diets high in fat to the control diet – yoyo groups), no change in microbiome profile was observed in female mice previously fed HFD with RS, while male mice previously fed a HFD supplemented with RS had a similar microbiome profile to control mice.

Conclusion

Different microbiome signatures and metabolic measurements were observed in male and female mice. In male mice consuming a HFD, RS lowered weight gain and shifted the microbiota profile to one similar to mice fed a control diet with RS. In males consuming a HFD diet interspaced with the control diet (yoyo-diet), RS shifted the microbiota profile of mice to a similar signature seen in control animals. No significant differences were observed in females.

Disclosure

No conflict of interest

YOYO DIETING AND BENEFITS OF RESISTANT STARCH ON GUT AND METABOLIC HEALTH

Kate Phuong-Nguyen 1, Sean Mcgee 1, Malik Quasir Mahmood 1, Martin O'Hely 2, Kathryn Aston-Mourney 1, Leni Rivera 1

1 Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia

2 Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia|||Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

Conference

UEG Week Copenhagen 2023

Topics

Small Intestine & Nutrition

Submission format

Abstract

Session

Various perspectives on nutritional medicine (Posters)

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2023; 11 (Supplement 8)

Published

2023

UEG Mistakes In Articles

New

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.

Abdominal distension and bloating are among the most frequently misunderstood complaints in gastroenterology. They are often used as interchangeable terms, a conceptual mistake that continues to drive diagnostic errors and ineffective treatment. According to Rome IV, bloating and distension may represent either a primary disorder of gut–brain interaction (DGBI) or occur as symptoms with other DGBIs, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia (FD) or functional constipation (FC).

Mistakes in abdominal distension and how to avoid them

Elizabeth Barba Orozco, Alberto Ezquerra-Durán

Topics

Neurogastroenterology & Motility

Citation

Barba E and Ezquerra-Durán A. Mistakes in abdominal distension and bloating and how to avoid them. UEG Education 2026; 26: 5-9.

Published

2026

UEG Mistakes In Articles

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.

Ostomy management refers to the care and maintenance of an ostomy and involves various aspects to ensure the individual’s health, comfort, and quality of life. This should involve the patient, a close support system (family and/or friends), and a healthcare team, including ostomy nurses and healthcare professionals specialising in ostomy care.

Mistakes in ostomy management and how to avoid them

Revital Barkan, Ian White, Iris Dotan

Topics

Primary Care

Published

2025

UEG Webinar

New

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.

UEG Webinar: AI Talk for Busy GI Doctors with Beatriz Gros Alcalde and Alexander Hann

Alexander Hann, Beatriz Gros Alcalde, Lucas Wauters

Topics

Endoscopy Education & Training

Published

2026

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.

What is the approach to malabsorption

Michael Schumann 1

1 Charité Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Event

UEG Week Vienna 2024

Topics

Small Intestine & Nutrition Primary Care

Session

Crash course: Malabsorption

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2024; 12 (Supplement 8)

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

Intestinal ultrasound (IUS), in particular bowel wall thickness (BWT), is accurate in determining endoscopic disease activity in ulcerative colitis (UC). Reduction of BWT six weeks into advanced anti-inflammatory treatment predicted endoscopic response and clinical remission. Filgotinib is a preferential JAK1-inhibitor effective in UC. Currently, there is no data on IUS-kinetics or early prediction of treatment response with filgotinib.

Aims & Methods

In this study, we aimed to identify early IUS predictors of treatment response to filgotinib in patients with moderate to severe UC. This prospective observational study included UC patients with active endoscopic disease (i.e. endoscopic MAYO score (EMS) ≥2) starting with filgotinib. Clinical scores (UCEIS, Lichtiger), biochemical parameters and IUS parameters of the sigmoid were assessed at baseline, after 4 weeks (W4) and at the time of the second endoscopy (between W8 and W23). Endoscopic remission (i.e. EMS=0), endoscopic response (i.e. decrease in EMS ≥1 compared to baseline) and clinical remission (SCCAI ≤2 or Lichtiger score ≤3) were assessed. IUS response (i.e. defined as a reduction in BWT of >25% or >2.0 mm, or >1.0 mm and one colour Doppler signal) was assessed at week 4. All normally distributed data were reported in mean ± standard deviation [SD] and non-normally distributed in median and interquartile range [IQR]. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare continuous non-parametric variables, chi square tests for dichotomous variables.

Results

A total of 20 patients were included. 13 patients underwent second endoscopy, 2 refused a follow-up endoscopy and 5 patients were still in follow-up. At baseline, 9 patients (9/20, 45%) had received ≥2 biologicals, 16 patients (16/20, 80%) had previous anti-TNF exposure, and no patients were exposed to other JAK-inhibitors. 8 patients (8/20, 40%) had severe endoscopic disease at baseline (i.e. EMS=3). 5 patients (5/13, 38%) were endoscopic responders at W8-23, and no patient reached endoscopic remission. BWT was significantly lower in the sigmoid colon from W4 onwards for patients reaching endoscopic response (Table 1). Decrease in BWT compared to baseline was statistically greater in endoscopic responders from W4 onwards (Table 1). IUS response was seen at W4 in 6 patients, of which 5 were endoscopic responders (83%, p=0.002). Decrease in BWT from W4 onwards was statistically greater in patients reaching clinical remission at W8-23 (-45% (-55% to -36.6%) vs -9% (-25% to +8%), p=0.014).

*Time point*	*Endoscopic response (n=5)*	*Endoscopic non-response (n=8)*	*p-value*
Median BWT (IQR) at baseline	4.5 mm (3.2-6.2)	5.1 mm (3.6-6.5)	p=0.61
Median BWT (IQR) at W4	1.9 mm (1.8-3.8)	4.7 mm (3.3-5.9)	*p=0.019*
Median BWT (IQR) at W8-23	2.2 mm (1.8-3.7)	5.3 mm (4.3-6.7)	*p=0.008*
Median decrease in BWT (IQR) W4	-42% (-53% to -38%)	-3% (-16% to +9%)	*p=0.003*
Median decrease in BWT (IQR) W8-23	-45% (-51% to -35%)	-10% (-1% to +24%)	*p=0.003*

Conclusion

On IUS, UC patients treated with filgotinib have significantly lower BWT from week 4 onwards compared to baseline, which could predict endoscopic response.

Disclosure

MP received speakers fees from Janssen and Tillotts
CT received speakers fees from Tillotts
FV received speaker or honoraria fees from AbbVie, Janssen and Tillotts
ML received consultancy/lecturefees from Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb , Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, Takeda and Tillotts.
RG Received speakers fee from Janssen and Tillotts
GD has served as a consultant and/or received speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion Healthcare, Cytoki Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Glaxo SmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Immunic, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Kaleido, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Takeda, Tillotts, Ventyx Biosciences.
KG has received grants from Pfizer Inc, Celltrion and Galapagos; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, Gilead, Immunic Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., Samsung Bioepis and Takeda and speaker’s honoraria from Abbvie, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda and Tillotts.