Management of Pregnant Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The rapid emergence of the novel coronavirus [SARS-CoV2] and the coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] has caused significant global morbidity and mortality. This is particularly concerning for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. Care for pregnant IBD patients in itself is a complex issue because of the delicate balance between controlling maternal IBD as well as promoting the health of the unborn child. This often requires continued immunosuppressive maintenance medication or the introduction of new IBD medication during pregnancy. The current global COVID-19 pandemic creates an additional challenge in the management of pregnant IBD patients. In this paper we aimed to answer relevant questions that can be encountered in daily clinical practice when caring for pregnant women with IBD during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

PODCAST

This article has an associated podcast which can be accessed at https://academic.oup.com/ecco-jcc/pages/podcast.

The second European evidenced-based consensus on reproduction and pregnancy in inflammatory bowel disease

Trying to conceive and being pregnant is an emotional period for those involved. In the majority of patients suffering from inflammatory bowel disease, maintenance therapy is required during pregnancy to control the disease, and disease control might necessitate introduction of new drugs during a vulnerable period. In this updated consensus on the reproduction and pregnancy in inflammatory bowel disease reproductive issues including fertility, the safety of drugs during pregnancy and lactation are discussed.

Drugs that inhibit gastric acid secretion may alter the course of inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that acid suppressive medications may alter factors central to the pathophysiology of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), whether through shifts in the intestinal microbiome due to acid suppression or effects on immune function.

AIM

To assess the relationship between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine2-receptor antagonists (H2Ra) and incidence of 'flares' (hospitalisation/surgery and change in medication).

METHODS

We conducted a new user cohort study including individuals diagnosed with IBD in British Columbia using linked healthcare utilisation databases (available from July 1996 through April 2006). Propensity-score matched incidence rates during a 6-month follow-up period and rate ratios (RR) and 95% CI were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 16 151 IBD patients, 1307 Crohn's disease (CD) and 996 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients experienced a new use of PPIs, whereas 741 CD and 738 UC used H2Ra. All IBD subgroups were matched separately to an equal number of unexposed IBD patients. H2Ra use in CD doubled the risk of hospitalisation/surgery (RR = 1.94; 95%CI 1.24-3.10) and numerically less so in UC patients (RR = 1.11) with widely overlapping CIs (0.61-2.03). Proton pump inhibitors use was associated with medication change in UC (RR = 1.39; 95%CI 1.20-1.62), but without meaningfully, increased risk of hospitalisation/surgery for UC or CD patients. Extending follow-up showed persistence, but attenuation, of all effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of PPIs or H2Ra may be associated with short-term changes in the course of IBD. Although confounding by indication was adjusted using propensity score matching, residual confounding may persist and findings need to be interpreted cautiously.

Appropriateness of therapy for fistulizing Crohn's disease: findings from a national inflammatory bowel disease cohort

BACKGROUND

About 30-50% of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) develop fistulae, implying significant disease burden and complicated clinical management.

AIM

To assess appropriate use of therapy for fistulizing CD patients enrolled in the Swiss Inflammatory Bowel Disease Cohort using criteria developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Crohn's disease Therapy.

METHODS

Specific questionnaires were used to gather information on disease and its management. We assessed appropriateness of therapy at enrolment for adult CD patients with one or several fistulae.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-eight CD patients had fistulizing disease, of which 80% had complex fistulae and 32% currently had active draining fistulae. Mean age (s.d.) at diagnosis was 27 years (11), 51% males. Of the patients, 78% were judged as having globally an appropriate therapy, which was more often given for complex fistulae (87%) than for simple fistulae (67%). Antibiotics, azathioprine/MP, methotrexate and conservative surgery were almost always appropriate. Anti-tumor necrosis factor α was considered globally appropriate (91%), although most often with an uncertain indication. The 5ASA compounds, steroids and aggressive surgery were most often inappropriate (84%, 58% and 86% respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Formal appropriateness criteria for CD therapy were applied to a national cohort of IBD patients. For more than three-quarters of the patients with fistulizing CD, therapy was globally appropriate.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Appropriate use of colonoscopy is a key component of quality management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In an update of a 1998 publication, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE II) defined appropriateness criteria for various colonoscopy indications. This introductory paper therefore deals with methodology, general appropriateness, and a review of colonoscopy complications.

METHODS

The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of various diagnostic colonoscopy indications, with 14 multidisciplinary experts using a scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Evidence reported in a comprehensive updated literature review was used for these decisions. Consolidation of the ratings into three appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) was based on the median and the heterogeneity of the votes. The experts then met to discuss areas of disagreement in the light of existing evidence, followed by a second rating round, with a subsequent third voting round on necessity criteria, using much more stringent criteria (i. e. colonoscopy is deemed mandatory).

RESULTS

Overall, 463 indications were rated, with 55 %, 16 % and 29 % of them being judged appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate, respectively. Perforation and hemorrhage rates, as reported in 39 studies, were in general < 0.1 % and < 0.3 %, respectively

CONCLUSIONS

The updated EPAGE II criteria constitute an aid to clinical decision-making but should in no way replace individual judgment. Detailed panel results are freely available on the internet (www.epage.ch) and will thus constitute a reference source of information for clinicians.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II.

METHODS

A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances.

RESULTS

Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Chronic diarrhea and known inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for investigation of chronic diarrhea, management of patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in such patients, and to report report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II.

METHODS

A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding the evaluation of chronic diarrhea, the management of IBD, and colorectal cancer surveillance in IBD was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions.

RESULTS

According to the literature, colonoscopic evaluation may be justified for patients aged > 50 years with recent-onset chronic diarrhea or with alarm symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy for CRC should be offered to all patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or colonic Crohn's disease of 8 years' duration, and to all patients with less extensive disease of 15 years' duration. Intervals for surveillance colonoscopy depend on duration of evolution, initial diagnosis, and histological findings. The EPAGE II criteria also confirmed the appropriateness of diagnostic colonoscopy for diarrhea of > 4 weeks' duration. They also suggest that, in addition to assessing extent of IBD by colonoscopy, further colonoscopic examination is appropriate in the face of persistent or worsening symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy in IBD patients was generally appropriate after a lapse of 2 years. In the presence of dysplasia at previous colonoscopy, it was not only appropriate but necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite or perhaps because of the limitations of the available published studies, the panel-based EPAGE II (http://www.epage.ch) criteria can help guide appropriate colonoscopy use in the absence of strong evidence from the literature.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Iron-deficiency anemia and hematochezia

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) and hematochezia, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II.

METHODS

A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of IDA and hematochezia was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions.

RESULTS

IDA occurs in 2 %-5 % of adult men and postmenopausal women. Examination of both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract is recommended in patients with iron deficiency. Colonoscopy for IDA yields one colorectal cancer (CRC) in every 9-13 colonoscopies. Hematochezia is a well-recognized alarm symptom and such patients are likely to be referred for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is unanimously recommended in patients aged > or = 50. Diverticulosis, vascular ectasias, and ischemic colitis are common causes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB); CRC is found in 0.2 %-11 % of the colonoscopies performed for LGIB. Most patients with scant hematochezia have an anorectal or a distal source of bleeding. The expert panel considered most clinical indications for colonoscopy as appropriate in the presence of IDA (58 %) or hematochezia (83 %).

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of the published studies, guidelines unanimously recommend colonoscopy for the investigation of IDA and hematochezia in patients aged > or = 50 years. These indications were also considered appropriate by EPAGE II, as were indications in patients at low risk for CRC with no obvious cause of bleeding found during adequate previous investigations.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Functional bowel disorders: pain, constipation and bloating

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of functional bowel symptoms, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II.

METHODS

A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of functional bowel symptoms was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions.

RESULTS

Much of the evidence for use of colonoscopy in evaluation of chronic abdominal pain, and/or constipation and/or abdominal bloating is modest. Major limitations include small numbers of patients and lack of adequate characterization of these patients. Large community-based follow-up studies are needed to enable better definition of the natural history of patients with functional bowel disorders. Guidelines stress that alarm features ("red flags"), such as rectal bleeding, anemia, weight loss, nocturnal symptoms, family history of colon cancer, age of onset > 50 years, and recent onset of symptoms should all lead to careful evaluation before a diagnosis of functional bowel disorder is made. EPAGE II assessed these symptoms by means of 12 clinical scenarios, rating colonoscopy as appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate in 42 % (5/12), 25 % (3/12), and 33 % (4/12) of these, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence to support the use of colonoscopy in the evaluation of patients with functional bowel disorders and no alarm features is lacking. These patients have no increased risk of colon cancer and thus advice on screening for this is not different from that for the general population. EPAGE II criteria, available online (http://www.epage.ch), consider colonoscopy appropriate in patients of > 50 years with chronic or new-onset bowel disturbances, but not in patients with isolated chronic abdominal pain.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II.

METHODS

A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy and after resection of CRC was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions.

RESULTS

Most CRCs arise from adenomatous polyps. The characteristics of removed polyps, especially the distinction between low-risk adenomas (1 or 2, small [< 1 cm], tubular, no high-grade dysplasia) vs. high-risk adenomas (large [> or = 1 cm], multiple [> 3], high-grade dysplasia or villous features), have an impact on advanced adenoma recurrence. Most guidelines recommend a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy for high-risk adenomas and a 5-year colonoscopy for low-risk adenomas. Despite the lack of evidence to support or refute any survival benefit for follow-up colonoscopy after curative-intent CRC resection, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended by most guidelines. The timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy differs. The expert panel considered that 56 % of the clinical indications for colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy were appropriate. For surveillance after CRC resection, it considered colonoscopy appropriate 1 year after resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy is recommended as a first-choice procedure for surveillance after polypectomy by all published guidelines and by the EPAGE II criteria. Despite the limitations of the published studies, colonoscopy is also recommended by most of the guidelines and by EPAGE II criteria for surveillance after curative-intent CRC resection.

Appropriate treatment for Crohn's disease: methodology and summary results of a multidisciplinary international expert panel approach--EPACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS

For many therapeutic decisions in Crohn's disease (CD), high-grade evidence is lacking. To assist clinical decision-making, explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria were developed by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel.

METHODS

10 gastroenterologists, 3 surgeons and 2 general practitioners from 12 European countries assessed the appropriateness of therapy for CD using the RAND Appropriateness Method. Their assessment was based on the study of a recent literature review of the subject, combined with their own expert clinical judgment. Panelists rated clinical indications and treatment options using a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate; 9 = extremely appropriate). These scenarios were then discussed in detail at the panel meeting and re-rated. Median ratings and disagreement were used to aggregate ratings into three assessment categories: appropriate (A), uncertain (U) and inappropriate (I).

RESULTS

569 specific indications were rated, dealing with 9 clinical presentations: mild/moderate luminal CD (n = 104), severe CD (n = 126), steroid-dependent CD (n = 25), steroid-refractory CD (n = 37), fistulizing CD (n = 49), fibrostenotic CD (n = 35), maintenance of medical remission of CD (n = 84), maintenance of surgical remission (n = 78), drug safety in pregnancy (n = 24) and use of infliximab (n = 7). Overall, 146 indications (26%) were judged appropriate, 129 (23%) uncertain and 294 (52%) inappropriate. Frank disagreement was low (14% overall) with the greatest disagreement (54% of scenarios) being observed for treatment of steroid-refractory disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Detailed explicit appropriateness criteria for the appropriate use of therapy for CD were developed for the first time by a European expert panel. Disease location, severity and previous treatments were the main factors taken into account. User-friendly access to EPACT criteria is available via an Internet site, www.epact.ch, allowing prospective evaluation and improvement of appropriateness of current CD therapy.