Faculty Bibliography

The treatment armamentarium for inflammatory bowel disease has expanded rapidly in the past several years with new biologic and small molecule-agents approved for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. This has made treatment selection more challenging with limited but evolving guidance as to where to position each medication. In this review, we discuss the efficacy data for each agent approved in the United States by reviewing their phase 3 trial data and other comparative effectiveness studies. In addition, safety considerations and use in special populations are summarized with proposed algorithms for positioning therapies. The aim is to provide a synopsis of high-impact data and aid in outpatient treatment decision-making for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

The Crohn"™s & Colitis Foundation has grown to appreciate the needs of gastroenterology trainees with numerous initiatives designed to provide education, academic opportunities, and mentoring in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in recent years. The editors and staff at Crohn"™s and Colitis 360 (CC360) have launched 2 new initiatives, the Fellow"™s Corner and the CC360 Editorial Fellowship, to support trainees in gaining knowledge and skills regarding peer review and publication as well as offering guidance on training in IBD and an opportunity for publication in this peer-reviewed, open access, quarterly online journal. These opportunities are described in this manuscript.

Introduction: The care of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has become increasingly complex and specialized. IBD education of gastroenterology (GI) trainees needs improvement and standardization. IBD 101, an annual course designed to introduce first-year GI fellows to various clinical topics in the management of IBD, was held on September 14, 2019. In this inaugural program, a select group of fellows (N=55 from 32 different programs) participated in a one-day course involving small group didactic sessions and Group Observed Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) led by expert faculty members in seven clinical topics.
Method(s): To assess the long-term impact of IBD 101, email surveys were administered in May 2022 (the graduating year of the inaugural IBD 101 cohort) to all third-year GI fellows from participating programs, inclusive of both attendees and non-attendees. The primary outcome was comfort level discussing the 7 topics addressed at IBD 101, graded using a Likert scale (15 "strongly disagree" to '45 "strongly agree"). Information regarding each fellow's exposure to IBD education was collected.
Result(s): Thirty-six fellows completed surveys, of whom 21 (58%) were IBD 101 attendees and 15 (42%) were non-attendees. Overall, attendees reported equivalent or higher levels of comfort in each of the 7 topics than did non-attendees (Figure). In particular, a higher proportion of attendees strongly agreed with comfort in discussing pregnancy and IBD (43% vs. 13%; P=0.04) and loss of response to biologics (62% vs. 27%; P=0.13) than non-attendees. When assessing overall confidence, 76% of attendees reported comfort in all 7 categories, compared with 53% of non-attendees (P=0.15). Attending IBD 101 was associated with overall confidence (OR 5.21 [95% CI 0.91-29.9]; P=0.06) even after adjusting for presence of an IBD specialist at a fellow's home institution, number of IBD patients seen per month (<=5 vs. >5) and rotating through an IBD-only clinic or inpatient service (Table).
Conclusion(s): IBD 101, a primer for first-year GI trainees, was associated with increased comfort in the management of IBD, with more pronounced impact on challenging topics. IBD 101 is a valuable learning opportunity for first-year GI fellows with a durable benefit independent of individual access to IBD education, and we plan continued development, expansion and assessment of this program in collaboration with the ACG to further enhance the IBD education of the pipeline of GI trainees. (Figure Presented)

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:As treatment options for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) expand each class of medication will have specific safety concerns and side-effect profiles that need to be considered for optimal treatment of patients. We will review the most recent safety data for the newly approved immunomodulator therapies for the treatment of IBD. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:There are a growing number of publications outlining safety concerns for medications used to treat IBD. We reviewed safety profile of anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies (TNF) with specific attention to combination therapy (anti-TNF plus immunomodulator). Recent publications have demonstrated increased risk of serious infection and malignancy (lymphoma and overall cancer rates) in patients receiving anti-TNF combination therapy when compared with patients receiving anti-TNF monotherapy or immunomodulator monotherapy. Recent publications on Janus Kinase Inhibitors indicate an increased risk of infection, specifically Herpes Zoster, and increased risk of major cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolic events resulting in a black box warning for the medication. In contrast, anti-interleukin 12/23 agents and gut selective anti-integrin antibody agents have demonstrated a favorable side-effect profile with low rates of infection and malignancy. The latest class of medications to be approved, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators, have cardiac and infectious precautions. The field of IBD treatment is rapidly evolving with several mechanistic classes of medications now available. While corticosteroids continue to be associated with the greatest, overall, safety risks, each of the newer mechanistic classes have unique safety concerns. In the future, as we gain more experience with these agents, we will need to continue to evaluate the safety profile of our therapies used alone or in combination to make informed treatment decisions with our patients.

BACKGROUND:There is wide variation in the quality of care of hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Prior studies have demonstrated that a specialized inpatient IBD service improves short-term outcomes. In this study, we assessed the impact of a dedicated IBD service on the quality of care and long-term outcomes. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted for a complication of IBD between March 2017 and February 2019 to a tertiary referral center. In March 2018, a dedicated inpatient IBD service co-managed by IBD gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons was implemented. Quality of care outcomes included C. difficile stool testing, confirmed VTE prophylaxis administration and opiate avoidance. Long-term outcomes were clinical remission, IBD-related surgery, ED visits, and hospital readmissions at 90 days and 12 months. RESULTS:In total, 143 patients were included; 66 pre- and 77 post-implementation of the IBD service. Fifty-two percent had ulcerative colitis and 48% had Crohn's disease. After implementation, there was improvement in C.difficile testing (90% vs. 76%, P = 0.04), early VTE prophylaxis (92% vs. 77%, P = 0.01) and decreases in narcotic use (14% vs. 30%, P = 0.02), IBD-related ED visits at 90 days (7% vs 18%, P = 0.03) and 12 months (16% vs 30%, P = 0.04), and IBD readmissions at 90 days (16% vs. 30%, P = 0.04). There were no differences in rates of clinical remission or surgery. CONCLUSIONS:The creation of a dedicated inpatient IBD service improved quality of IBD care and reduced post-discharge ED visits and readmissions and broader implementation of this strategy may help optimize care of hospitalized IBD patients.

BACKGROUND:With the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) becoming increasingly complex, incorporating preventive care health maintenance measures can be challenging. The aim of developing these updated recommendations is to provide more specific details to facilitate their use into a busy clinical practice setting. METHOD:Fifteen statements were formulated with recommendations regarding the target, timing, and frequency of the health maintenance interventions in patients with IBD. We used a modified Delphi method and a literature review to establish a consensus among the panel of experts. The appropriateness of each health maintenance statement was rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-2 as inappropriate, and 4-5 as appropriate) by each panelist. Interventions were considered appropriate, and statements were accepted if ≥80% of the panelists agreed with a score ≥4. RESULTS:The panel approved 15 health maintenance recommendations for adults with IBD based on the current literature and expert opinion. These recommendations include explicit details regarding specific screening tools, timing of screening, and vaccinations for adults with IBD. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with IBD are at an increased risk for infections, malignancies, and other comorbidities. Given the complexity of caring for patients with IBD, this focused list of recommendations can be easily incorporated in to clinical care to help eliminate the gap in preventative care for patients with IBD.

Introduction: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is a common educational strategy to assess interpersonal skills and knowledge gaps, and we have previously shown its benefits in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) education. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been explosive growth in telehealth. Currently, we lack methods to teach and evaluate trainees' related skillset and no telehealth-specific milestones exist. We assessed the telehealth proficiency of gastroenterology (GI) fellows as part of an annual IBD OSCE over Zoom (Z-OSCE).
Method(s): Seven GI fellows from four programs participated in Z-OSCE featuring four clinical scenarios. We used previously validated OSCE checklists to assess the fellows' performance in IBDspecific cases. Telehealth communication skills were also assessed. One of the scenarios required the trainees to conduct a televisit focusing on preventative care for a Crohn's disease patient based on the ACG guideline. Checklists were scored on a 3-point Likert scale by the Standardized Patient (SP).
Result(s): The telehealth behavioral anchored checklist items included: maintaining proper computer etiquette, use of non-verbal communication and positioning to optimize the encounter, optimized technical aspects, and exhibiting comfort and confidence with the virtual platform. In these domains 5 or 6 (out of 7) fellows received 3 points. In contrast less than half of the fellows asked questions of the SP to make sure they understood or acknowledged emotion, and 3 out 7 fellows did not make appropriate eye contact. Despite high performance in the telehealth aspects of the encounter, the SP did not fully recommend fellows for their communication skills without reservations to friends/ family, with all fellows receiving 2 points.
Conclusion(s): Telehealth has quickly become a fixture of our profession, and merits educational opportunities and assessment to improve clinicians' competency, as it will likely outlast the COVID- 19 pandemic. To our knowledge, this is the first OSCE designed to assess telehealth performance in the delivery of IBD care. Z-OSCEs can play a unique role in simulating realistic telehealth visits and this pilot program helps us identify future educational needs. Assessment of fellows' performance during this virtual program can provide an opportunity for learning, growth and reflection as well as prepare trainees for future patient encounters

Introduction: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) has been shown to not only assess but also improve the performance of trainees. Our group has previously demonstrated the benefits of OSCEs to assess gastroenterology (GI) fellows. We have successfully assessed performance across numerous milestones. Typically, OSCEs are held in person, however the COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated the need for virtual learning. We accordingly transitioned to a virtual zoom OSCE (Z-OSCE) and evaluated trainees' perception of this program.
Method(s): Fourteen first- and second-year GI fellows from five programs across multiple states participated in a four-station virtual OSCE on Zoom. Afterwards, participants answered a survey to share their perspectives and provide feedback. Learners were asked to rate the usefulness of the virtual OSCE and compare it to other in-person and virtual educational modalities. These questions were rated on a 10-point Likert scale (Figure 1). Additionally, free-text responses regarding any aspect of the OSCE were evaluated for comments on the virtual format.
Result(s): In comparing the usefulness of the virtual OSCE to other in-person modalities, trainees rated it a mean of 7.15 (range 5-10), and 31% of respondents rated it a 9 or 10. Trainees rated the virtual OSCE compared to other virtual learning modalities a mean of 8.15 (range 5-10), and 43% rated it 9 or 10. When asked whether they would recommend this OSCE as a training tool, the trainees gave a mean recommendation of 7.77 (range 5-10), and 38% gave a 9 or 10. General feedback regarding the nature of the OSCE noted the virtual format worked well, orientation to the format was important and could be improved by providing it in an email beforehand.
Conclusion(s): Virtual learning has been necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is crucial to evaluate the value of the novel Z-OSCE. Participants found the virtual OSCE may be more useful than in-person learning modalities and it compared favorably to other virtual learning modalities. One benefit of this modality was the easier inclusion of fellows from geographically disparate areas negating the need to travel for this program, a benefit given lack of universal access to simulation using standardized patients. To improve future exams, orientation prior to the day of the OSCE may improve trainees' experiences.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE:Ustekinumab (UST) is a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of IL-12/IL-23 approved for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a meta-analysis to compare rates of adverse events (AEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of UST for all indications. STUDY/METHODS:A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases through November 2019. Study inclusion included RCTs comparing UST to placebo or other biologics in patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of an autoimmune condition. RESULTS:Thirty RCTs with 16,068 patients were included in our analysis. Nine thousand six hundred and twenty-six subjects were included in the UST vs placebo analysis. There was no significant difference in serious or mild/moderate AEs between UST and placebo with an OR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.66, 1.05) and 1.08 (95% CI 0.99, 1.18), respectively, over a median follow-up time of 16 weeks. In a sub-analysis of CD and UC trials, no difference in serious or mild/moderate AEs in UST versus placebo was seen. CONCLUSIONS:UST was not associated with an increase in short-term risk of AEs.