The lack of clear definition and classification for “moderate ulcerative colitis (UC)” creates ambiguity regarding the suitability of step-up versus top-down treatment approaches. In this paper, experts address crucial gaps in assessing and managing moderate UC. The Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and Africa Inflammatory Bowel Disease Coalition comprised 24 experts who convened to share, discuss and vote electronically on management recommendations for moderate UC. Experts emphasized that the goal of treating UC is to attain clinical, biomarker, and endoscopic remission using cost-effective strategies such as 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), well-tolerated therapy that can be optimized to improve outcomes. Experts agreed that 5-ASA therapy could be optimized by maximizing dosage (4 g/day for induction of remission), combining oral and topical administration, extending treatment duration beyond 8 weeks, and enhancing patient adherence through personalized counselling and reduced pill burden. Treatment escalation should ideally be reserved for patients with predictors of aggressive disease or those who do not respond to 5-ASA optimization. Premature treatment escalation to advanced therapies (including biologics and oral small molecules) may have long-term health and financial consequences. This paper provides consensus-based expert recommendations and a treatment algorithm, based on current evidence and practices, to assist decision-making in real-world settings.

The lack of clear definition and classification for “moderate ulcerative colitis (UC)” creates ambiguity regarding the suitability of step-up versus top-down treatment approaches. In this paper, experts address crucial gaps in assessing and managing moderate UC. The Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and Africa Inflammatory Bowel Disease Coalition comprised 24 experts who convened to share, discuss and vote electronically on management recommendations for moderate UC. Experts emphasized that the goal of treating UC is to attain clinical, biomarker, and endoscopic remission using cost-effective strategies such as 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), well-tolerated therapy that can be optimized to improve outcomes. Experts agreed that 5-ASA therapy could be optimized by maximizing dosage (4 g/day for induction of remission), combining oral and topical administration, extending treatment duration beyond 8 weeks, and enhancing patient adherence through personalized counselling and reduced pill burden. Treatment escalation should ideally be reserved for patients with predictors of aggressive disease or those who do not respond to 5-ASA optimization. Premature treatment escalation to advanced therapies (including biologics and oral small molecules) may have long-term health and financial consequences. This paper provides consensus-based expert recommendations and a treatment algorithm, based on current evidence and practices, to assist decision-making in real-world settings.

The lack of clear definition and classification for “moderate ulcerative colitis (UC)” creates ambiguity regarding the suitability of step-up versus top-down treatment approaches. In this paper, experts address crucial gaps in assessing and managing moderate UC. The Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and Africa Inflammatory Bowel Disease Coalition comprised 24 experts who convened to share, discuss and vote electronically on management recommendations for moderate UC. Experts emphasized that the goal of treating UC is to attain clinical, biomarker, and endoscopic remission using cost-effective strategies such as 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), well-tolerated therapy that can be optimized to improve outcomes. Experts agreed that 5-ASA therapy could be optimized by maximizing dosage (4 g/day for induction of remission), combining oral and topical administration, extending treatment duration beyond 8 weeks, and enhancing patient adherence through personalized counselling and reduced pill burden. Treatment escalation should ideally be reserved for patients with predictors of aggressive disease or those who do not respond to 5-ASA optimization. Premature treatment escalation to advanced therapies (including biologics and oral small molecules) may have long-term health and financial consequences. This paper provides consensus-based expert recommendations and a treatment algorithm, based on current evidence and practices, to assist decision-making in real-world settings.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, is a chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract with unknown etiology. The cause of IBD is widely considered multifactorial, with prevailing hypotheses suggesting that the microbiome and various environmental factors contribute to inappropriate activation of the mucosal immune system in genetically susceptible individuals. Although the incidence of IBD has stabilized in Western countries, it is rapidly increasing in newly industrialized countries, particularly China, making IBD a global disease. Significant changes in multiple biomarkers before IBD diagnosis during the preclinical phase provide opportunities for earlier diagnosis and intervention. Advances in technology have driven the development of telemonitoring tools, such as home-testing kits for fecal calprotectin, serum cytokines, and therapeutic drug concentrations, as well as wearable devices for testing sweat cytokines and heart rate variability. These tools enable real-time disease activity assessment and timely treatment strategy adjustments. A wide range of novel drugs for IBD, including interleukin-23 inhibitors (mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) and small-molecule drugs (etrasimod and upadacitinib), have been introduced in the past few years. Despite these advancements, approximately one-third of patients remain primary non-responders to the initial treatment, and half eventually lose response over time. Precision medicine integrating multi-omics data, advanced combination therapy, and complementary approaches, including stem cell transplantation, psychological therapies, neuromodulation, and gut microbiome modulation therapy, may offer solutions to break through the therapeutic ceiling.
Humans ; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/therapy*

Ulcerative colitis(UC)is a chronic and prolonged condition spanning multiple disciplines.Standardized diagnostics and treatment are paramount for enhancing the therapeutic efficacy and improving the prognosis of UC.In the last a couple of years,substantial progress has been achieved in both basic and clinical research on UC in our country.The integration of novel diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms,new treatment modalities,have necessitated the update of consensus on UC management,offering imperative,evidence-based guidelines for health providers.This guideline,collaboratively developed by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group of Chinese Society of Gastroenterology,Chinese Medical Association,and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality Control Center of China,incorporates the latest international consensus,domestic research findings,and practical considerations,as an update based on the 2018 Chinese consensus on diagnosis and treatment in inflammatory bowel disease.The formulation of this guideline aims to reflect the latest concepts and research findings in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of UC,providing standardized guidance for the clinical management of UC.

Crohn's disease(CD)is a complex condition spanning multiple disciplines.Standardized diagnostics and treatment are paramount for enhancing the therapeutic efficacy and improving the prognosis of CD.In recent years,substantial progress has been achieved in both basic and clinical research on CD in China.The integration of novel diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms,new treatment modalities,have necessitated the update of consensus on CD management,offering imperative,evidence-based guidelines for health providers.This guideline,collaboratively developed by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group of Chinese Society of Gastroenterology,Chinese Medical Association,and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality Control Center of China,incorporates the latest international consensus,domestic research findings,and practical considerations,as an update based on the 2018 Chinese consensus on diagnosis and treatment in inflammatory bowel disease.The formulation of this guideline aims to reflect the latest concepts and research findings in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of CD,providing standardized guidance for the clinical management of CD.

Objective:To investigate the effects of biologics on psychological status and quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Methods:A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 42 hospitals in 22 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government) from September 2021 to May 2022. General clinical information and the use of biologics were obtained from adult patients diagnosed with IBD who voluntarily participated in the study. Psychological status was evaluated using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) assessment tools. Counts were analyzed via the Chi-square test, and datasets that were not normally distributed were analyzed via nonparametric tests. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 2 478 valid questionnaires were collected. The GAD-7 score of the biologics group was significantly lower than that of the non-use group [6 (2, 9) vs. 7 (3, 10), Z=-3.49, P<0.001]. IBDQ scores [183 (158, 204) vs. 178 (152, 198), Z=-4.11, P<0.001], intestinal symptom scores [61 (52, 67) vs. 58 (49, 65), Z=-5.41, P<0.001], systemic symptom scores [28 (24, 32) vs. 27 (23, 31), Z=-2.37, P=0.018], emotional ability scores [69 (58, 77) vs. 67 (56, 75), Z=-3.58, P<0.001] and social ability scores [26 (22, 29) vs. 25 (22, 29), Z=-2.52, P=0.012] in the biologics group were significantly higher than in the non-use group. GAD-7 scores [5 (2, 9) vs. 6 (3, 10), Z=-3.50, P<0.001] and PSQI scores [6 (4, 9) vs. 6 (4, 9), Z=-2.55, P=0.011] were significantly lower in the group using infliximab than in the group not using it. IBDQ scores were significantly higher in patients using vedolizumab than in those not using it [186 (159, 205) vs. 181 (155, 201), Z=-2.32, P=0.021] and were also significantly higher in the group treated with adalimumab than in the group not treated with adalimumab [187 (159, 209) vs. 181 (155, 201), Z=-2.16, P=0.030]. However, ustekinumab had no significant effect on any of the scores. Conclusion:The use of biologics is strongly associated with improvements in anxiety status and quality of life in IBD patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a worldwide pandemic. During the rapid spread time, it is a great challenge for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who use immunosuppressive drugs from vaccination and drug application. This article is intended to supplement and revise the recommendations of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group of the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology in 2020 on the "Management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease during epidemic of novel coronavirus pneumonia", mainly including the treatment and vaccination of IBD patients complicated with COVID-19. It is expected to guide clinicians in drug use, vaccination of IBD patients at an appropriate time, also help patients getting through the epidemic period of COVID-19.

Background:Therapeutic drug monitoring(TDM)has emerged as the important method for managing loss of response to infliximab.The effect of reactive and proactive TDM on clinical outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease(IBD)is uncertain.Aims:To evaluate the effect of proactive and reactive TDM of infliximab on the prognosis of patients with IBD.Methods:Clinical data of 99 IBD patients treated with IFX from January 2017 to October 2021 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Military Medical University were retrospectively analyzed,including 34 patients with proactive TDM and 65 patients with reactive TDM.The rate of treatment failure,IBD-related surgery or hospitalization were compared between the two groups.Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent risk factors of treatment failure.Results:The median follow-up of the patients was 21(13,32)months.The rate of treatment failure,IBD-related hospitalization rate of proactive TDM group were significantly lower than those of reactive TDM group(P<0.05),however,no significant difference in IBD-related surgery rate was found between two groups(P=0.081).Univariate analysis showed that ileocolonic resection before TDM,antibodies to infliximab(ATI)and reactive TDM might be correlated with treatment failure(P<0.05).Logistic regression analysis showed that reactive TDM(OR=5.829,95%CI:1.070-31.754,P=0.042)was the risk factor of treatment failure,and ileocolonic resection before TDM(OR=0.119,95%CI:0.019-0.736,P=0.022)was the protective factor of treatment failure.Conclusions:Compared with reactive TDM group,proactive TDM can significantly decrease the rate of treatment failure and IBD-related hospitalization rate.Reactive TDM is the risk factor of treatment failure,and ileocolonic resection before TDM is the protective factor of treatment failure.

Objective:To compare the knowledge of endoscopic screening of gastrointestinal cancers between digestive healthcare workers and new chatbots (chatGPT and new Bing).Methods:A test with twenty-three questions of endoscopic screening of gastrointestinal cancers was conducted, focusing on the appropriate age of screening, high-risk factors, the follow-up time, and the advantages and risks of digestive endoscopy. Digestive healthcare workers were invited to complete the test through electronic questionnaires. New Bing and chatGPT were used to answer each question for 10 rounds. The primary endpoint was the correct rate of all answers. The answer accuracy between digestive healthcare workers and new chatbots were compared using variance analysis, and the factors that affected the accuracy of the answers in digestive healthcare workers were explored using univariate and multivariable liner regression analysis.Results:The results of the test completed by 76 digestive healthcare workers (21 residents, 28 digestive nurses, and 27 digestive doctors) were analyzed. The accuracies were 36.4%±10.9%, 34.5%±10.2%, 52.2%± 12.6%, 46.3%±9.8% and 67.1%±9.3% in residents, digestive nurses, digestive doctors, chatGPT, and new Bing, respectively, with significant difference ( F=22.6, P<0.001). The accuracy was highest in new Bing ( P<0.001). The accuracy was comparable between chatGPT and digestive doctors (LSD- t=-1.398, P=0.166), and both higher than that of digestive nurses (LSD- t=2.956, P=0.004; LSD- t=5.955, P<0.001) and residents (LSD- t=2.402, P=0.018; LSD- t=4.951, P<0.001). Furthermore, the accuracy was comparable between digestive nurses and residents (LSD- t=-0.574, P=0.567). Compared with new Bing, digestive doctors had lower accuracy in answering questions related to adverse events of screening, follow-up recommendation of intestinal metaplasia, high risk factors and screening methods for colon cancer ( P<0.05), but higher accuracy in answering questions related to endoscopic adverse events and screening methods for esophageal cancer ( P<0.05). Multivariable liner regression analysis showed that being digestive doctors ( β=11.7, t=3.054, P=0.003) and questionnaire response time (≥7.6 min) ( β=7.8, t=2.894, P=0.005) were independent factors for the answer accuracy of digestive healthcare workers. Conclusion:Compared with digestive healthcare workers, New chatbots—new Bing has higher accuracy in answering gastrointestinal cancer screening-related questions, but performs poorly in answering questions such as adverse events of endoscopy and screening methods for esophageal cancer.