Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Salvage of the existing ileal pouch is favored during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis if the pouch is not damaged after pelvic dissection and there are no other mechanical reasons that may necessitate construction of a new pouch. Excision of the existing pouch may be associated with some concerns for short-bowel syndrome and poor functional outcomes. This study aimed to report indications and compare functional and quality of life outcomes of new pouch creation versus salvage of the existing pouch during re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. METHODS:Patients who underwent re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis between September 2016 and June 2020 were included. The reasons for pouch excision and new pouch creation were reported. Perioperative, functional outcomes and quality of life were compared between patients who had creation of a new pouch versus salvage of existing pouch. RESULTS:A total of 105 patients with re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis (new pouch, n = 63) were included. Most common indications for a new pouch creation were chronic pelvic infection that compromised the integrity and viability of the existing pouch (n = 32) and small pouch (n = 21). No patient developed short-bowel syndrome. The number of bowel movements, daily restrictions and Cleveland Global Quality of Life score scores were similar between 2 groups. Day-time seepage, day-time and night-time pad usage were more common after new pouch creation. Two-year pouch survival rates were comparable (new pouch: 92% versus existing pouch: 85%, P = .31). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:New pouch creation can be safely performed at the time of re-do ileal pouch anal anastomosis. It provides acceptable functional and quality of life outcomes if existing pouch salvage is not feasible.

BACKGROUND:Fecal incontinence (FI) affects up to 1 in 4 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is associated with inflammation, surgeries, and altered rectal sensitivity. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a surgical intervention for select IBD patients to avoid a permanent stoma. High-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) studies in IBD patients with FI demonstrate lower resting pressures and rectal sensory dysfunction. However, HRAM data in IBD patients with FI post-IPAA remains limited. We hypothesized patients with FI would have lower resting and squeeze pressures and rectal hypersensitivity compared to healthy controls and that these changes would be similar after IPAA. METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients undergoing HRAM from 2017-2021 at a single urban academic medical center. Patient characteristics (age, gender, BMI, stool frequency, diabetes, pregnancy history) and surgical history (prior perianal surgery, index vs. re-do IPAA) were obtained. HRAM variables included rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR), sphincter length, resting, squeeze, cough, and push pressures, sensation thresholds (first sensation, constant sensation, desire to defecate, urgency to defecate, max tolerable volume), and balloon expulsion test (BET). HRAM outcomes in IPAA patients with FI (IPAA-FI) were compared to non-IBD patients with FI (non-IBD-FI). HRAM data for both patient cohorts were also compared to existing normative data of healthy controls. Non-IBD patients with constipation and FI were excluded from analysis. An independent samples t-test was performed (p < 0.05) for continuous variables, and chi-square test was used for categorical variables. RESULTS:Fifty-six patients (66% female) were in the non-IBD-FI group. Eighteen patients (67% female) were in the IPAA-FI group. Average age in the IPAA-FI cohort was 44.8 ± 13.6 vs. 66.3 ± 14.4 in the non-IBD-FI group (p< 0.01). Sphincter length in the IPAA-FI group was 2.7 ± 1.1cm vs. 3.2 ± 0.6cm in the non-IBD-FI group (p=0.03). There was no significant difference in sensation thresholds or resting, squeeze, cough, and push pressures between the two groups. Urinary incontinence was observed in 5.6% of IPAA-FI patients vs. 44.6% of non-IBD-FI patients (p < 0.01). RAIR was present in 38.5% of IPAA-FI patients vs. 100% of non-IBD-FI patients (p < 0.01). Both patient cohorts had significantly shorter sphincter length, lower squeeze and push pressures, and lower sensation thresholds compared to normative data. Resting pressures for the IPAA-FI group was not significantly different compared to healthy controls. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, anorectal pressures and sensation are similar between IPAA-FI and non-IBD-FI patients. However, the underlying FI mechanism seems to differ. Higher rates of urinary incontinence in the non-IBD-FI cohort suggests global pelvic floor dysfunction compared to IPAA-FI patients who are younger and have post-operative neuromuscular dysfunction, as evidenced by shorter sphincter length and absent RAIR. Though rectal hypersensitivity and lower squeeze/push pressures are observed in both patient groups compared to healthy controls, normal resting pressure in IPAA-FI suggests that potentially different normative ranges are needed for this cohort to accurately assess post-surgical changes and guide pre-operative counseling.

BACKGROUND:Fecal incontinence (FI) affects up to 1 in 4 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is associated with inflammation, surgeries, and altered rectal sensitivity. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a surgical intervention for select IBD patients to avoid a permanent stoma. High-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) studies in IBD patients with FI demonstrate lower resting pressures and rectal sensory dysfunction. However, HRAM data in IBD patients with FI post-IPAA remains limited. We hypothesized patients with FI would have lower resting and squeeze pressures and rectal hypersensitivity compared to healthy controls and that these changes would be similar after IPAA. METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients undergoing HRAM from 2017-2021 at a single urban academic medical center. Patient characteristics (age, gender, BMI, stool frequency, diabetes, pregnancy history) and surgical history (prior perianal surgery, index vs. re-do IPAA) were obtained. HRAM variables included rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR), sphincter length, resting, squeeze, cough, and push pressures, sensation thresholds (first sensation, constant sensation, desire to defecate, urgency to defecate, max tolerable volume), and balloon expulsion test (BET). HRAM outcomes in IPAA patients with FI (IPAA-FI) were compared to non-IBD patients with FI (non-IBD-FI). HRAM data for both patient cohorts were also compared to existing normative data of healthy controls. Non-IBD patients with constipation and FI were excluded from analysis. An independent samples t-test was performed (p < 0.05) for continuous variables, and chi-square test was used for categorical variables. RESULTS:Fifty-six patients (66% female) were in the non-IBD-FI group. Eighteen patients (67% female) were in the IPAA-FI group. Average age in the IPAA-FI cohort was 44.8 ± 13.6 vs. 66.3 ± 14.4 in the non-IBD-FI group (p< 0.01). Sphincter length in the IPAA-FI group was 2.7 ± 1.1cm vs. 3.2 ± 0.6cm in the non-IBD-FI group (p=0.03). There was no significant difference in sensation thresholds or resting, squeeze, cough, and push pressures between the two groups. Urinary incontinence was observed in 5.6% of IPAA-FI patients vs. 44.6% of non-IBD-FI patients (p < 0.01). RAIR was present in 38.5% of IPAA-FI patients vs. 100% of non-IBD-FI patients (p < 0.01). Both patient cohorts had significantly shorter sphincter length, lower squeeze and push pressures, and lower sensation thresholds compared to normative data. Resting pressures for the IPAA-FI group was not significantly different compared to healthy controls. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, anorectal pressures and sensation are similar between IPAA-FI and non-IBD-FI patients. However, the underlying FI mechanism seems to differ. Higher rates of urinary incontinence in the non-IBD-FI cohort suggests global pelvic floor dysfunction compared to IPAA-FI patients who are younger and have post-operative neuromuscular dysfunction, as evidenced by shorter sphincter length and absent RAIR. Though rectal hypersensitivity and lower squeeze/push pressures are observed in both patient groups compared to healthy controls, normal resting pressure in IPAA-FI suggests that potentially different normative ranges are needed for this cohort to accurately assess post-surgical changes and guide pre-operative counseling.

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), psoriasis (PsO), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are immune-mediated inflammatory diseases characterized by dysregulation of the immune system. Evidence suggests that they share a common genetic and pathophysiologic pathway and that the presence of one increases the risk of developing others. While rates of PsO and PsA are increased in patients with IBD, data is lacking regarding whether phenotypic differences exist in patients with concurrent disease. In this study, we describe the disease characteristics of patients with IBD and PsO/PsA overlap.
Method(s): We performed a single-center case-control observational study. Eighty-five patients with IBD and PsO and/or PsA were identified and matched with a control group of patients with IBD alone in a 1:2 fashion based on age, sex and IBD type (n=190). Patient demographics, IBD phenotype and history, treatment patterns, and family history were collected.
Result(s): We identified 85 patients with IBD and PsO +/-PsA, matched with 190 controls. IBD 1 PsO/PsA patients were less frequently White (85% vs. 94%) and more frequently Asian (7% vs. 3%), compared with IBD only patients (P, 0.01, Table 1). There were no differences in extent of ulcerative colitis (UC) or distribution of Crohn's disease (CD), but patients with IBD alone were more likely to have penetrating Crohn's disease (48% vs. 7%; P, 0.01), prior hospitalizations (48% vs. 28%; P, 0.01), and prior surgeries (35% vs. 17%; P=0.02), compared to patients with overlap PsO +/-PsA. Rates of exposure to various biologic therapies were similar between the two groups, with the exception of decreased vedolizumab use in the IBD 1 PsO/PsA group (12% vs. 31% respectively; P, 0.01, Table 2). IBD only patients were more likely to have first-degree relatives (FDR) with IBD (35% vs. 23%; P=0.02) and numerically less likely to have a FDR with PsO or PsA (14% vs. 20%; P=0.21) than patients with PsO/PsA overlap (Table 1).
Conclusion(s): In this study, we report for the first time disease characteristics of patients with IBD and overlap PsO or PsA. Our results suggests that patients with IBD and PsO/PsA may have a less severe disease phenotype than patients with IBD alone, and that genetic risks may differ between these two groups. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings

Introduction: Previous studies have demonstrated that exposure to anti-TNFa medications or immunomodulators (IMM) does not increase the risk of new or recurrent cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a previous history of cancer. There is little data regarding this risk after the use of newer biologics such as ustekinumab and vedolizumab. In this study, we assessed whether patients with IBD and a history of previous cancer who are exposed to these newer agents have an increased risk of developing subsequent cancer.
Method(s): We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with IBD and cancer from a single academic medical center between January 2013 and December 2020. We recorded information on demographics, cancer type and treatment, and IBD characteristics and drug exposures. The primary exposure was type of IBD monotherapy after a cancer diagnosis. The primary outcome was development of new or recurrent cancer.
Result(s): Of 401 patients with IBD and a history of cancer, 37 subsequently received vedolizumab, 14 ustekinumab, 31 IMM, 41 anti-TNF, 11 combination anti-TNF with an IMM, and 267 were not exposed to any immunosuppression following a cancer diagnosis (Table 1). There were no differences in duration of IBD, median age at cancer diagnosis, or smoking history. During a total median follow-up of 52 months, 81 (20%) patients developed incident cancer including 6 (16%) exposed to vedolizumab, 2 (14%) to ustekinumab, 3 (10%) to IMM, 12 (29%) to anti-TNF, 2 (18%) to combination anti-TNF with an IMM, and 56 (21%) with no immunosuppression (P = 0.41). Sensitivity analyses assessing any history of exposure to vedolizumab or ustekinumab, inclusive of both single and multiple biologic exposures, also did not reveal an increased rate of incident cancer.
Conclusion(s): In this single-center study, vedolizumab or ustekinumab monotherapy in patients with IBD and a history of cancer was not associated with an increase in new or recurrent cancer compared with anti-TNF, IMM, or no immunosuppression. Prospective studies are needed to confirm this conclusion

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is an option for most patients with ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis who require colectomy. Although the construction of an ileal pouch substantially improves patients' health-related quality of life, the surgery is, directly or indirectly, associated with various structural, inflammatory, and functional adverse sequelae. Furthermore, the surgical procedure does not completely abolish the risk for neoplasia. Patients with ileal pouches often present with extraintestinal, systemic inflammatory conditions. The International Ileal Pouch Consortium was established to create this consensus document on the diagnosis and classification of ileal pouch disorders using available evidence and the panellists' expertise. In a given individual, the condition of the pouch can change over time. Therefore, close monitoring of the activity and progression of the disease is essential to make accurate modifications in the diagnosis and classification in a timely manner.

Background Dual-energy CT enterography (DECTE) has been shown to be useful in characterizing Crohn disease activity compared with clinical markers of inflammation but, to the knowledge of the authors, comparison has not been made with histopathologic specimens. Purpose To compare mucosal iodine density obtained at DECTE from Crohn disease-affected bowel with histopathologic specimens from surgically resected ileocolectomy bowel segments or terminal ileum colonoscopic biopsies in the same patients. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study. Bowel segments in adults with Crohn disease who underwent DECTE from January 2017 to April 2019 within 90 days of ileocolectomy or colonoscopy were retrospectively evaluated with prototype software allowing the semiautomatic determination of inner hyperdense bowel wall (mucosal) mean iodine density, normalized to the aorta. Mean normalized iodine density and clinical activity indexes (Crohn Disease Activity Index [CDAI] and Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI]) were compared with histologic active inflammation grades by using two-tailed t tests. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated for mean normalized iodine density, CDAI, and HBI to determine sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. A P value less than .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Results The following 16 patients were evaluated (mean age, 41 years ± 14 [standard deviation]): 10 patients (five men, five women; mean age, 41 years ± 15) with 19 surgical resection specimens and six patients with terminal ileum colonoscopic mucosal biopsies (four men, two women; mean age, 43 years ± 14). Mean normalized iodine density was 16.5% ± 5.7 for bowel segments with no active inflammation (n = 8) and 34.7% ± 9.7 for segments with any active inflammation (n = 17; P < .001). A 20% mean normalized iodine density threshold had sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 17 of 17 (100%; 95% CI: 80.5, 100), six of eight (75%; 95% CI: 35, 97), and 23 of 25 (92%; 95% CI: 74, 99), respectively, for active inflammation. Clinical indexes were similar for patients with and without active inflammation at histopathologic analysis (CDAI score, 261 vs 251, respectively [P = .77]; HBI score, 7.8 vs 6.4, respectively [P = .36]). Conclusion Iodine density from dual-energy CT enterography may be used as a radiologic marker of Crohn disease activity as correlated with histopathologic analysis. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Ohliger in this issue.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess inter-reader agreement of key features from the SAR-AGA recommendations for the interpretation and reporting of MRE in adult patients with CD, focusing on the impact of radiologist experience on inter-reader agreement of CD phenotypes. METHODS:Two experienced and two less-experienced radiologists retrospectively evaluated 99 MRE in CD patients (50 initial MRE, 49 follow-up MRE) performed from 1/1/2019 to 3/20/2020 for the presence of active bowel inflammation (stomach, proximal small bowel, ileum, colon), stricture, probable stricture, penetrating disease, and perianal disease. The MRE protocol did not include dedicated perianal sequences. Inter-rater agreement was determined for each imaging feature using prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa and compared by experience level. RESULTS:All readers had almost-perfect inter-reader agreement (κ > 0.90) for penetrating disease, abscess, and perianal abscess in all 99 CD patients. All readers had strong inter-reader agreement (κ: 0.80-0.90) in 99 CD patients for active ileum inflammation, proximal small bowel inflammation, and stricture. Less-experienced readers had significantly lower inter-reader agreement for active ileum inflammation on initial than follow-up MRE (κ 0.68 versus 0.96, p = 0.018) and for strictures on follow-up than initial MRE (κ 0.76 versus 1.0, p = 0.027). Experienced readers had significantly lower agreement for perianal fistula on follow-up than initial MRE (κ: 0.55 versus 0.92, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was strong to almost-perfect inter-reader agreement for key CD phenotypes described in the SAR-AGA consensus recommendations including active ileum and proximal small bowel inflammation, stricture, penetrating disease, abscess, and perianal abscess. Areas of lower inter-reader agreement could be targeted for future education efforts to further standardize CD MRE reporting. Dedicated perianal sequences should be included on follow-up MRE.

Pouchitis is the most common complication in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Up to 81% of IPAA patients experience pouchitis, with 40% of patients presenting within the first year of surgery. Common risk factors include genetic mutations, extensive colitis, rheumatologic disorders, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Currently, there are no medications with approved indications for pouchitis. As such, the conventional treatment of pouchitis is entirely off-label. This paper is intended to be a practical and up-to-date review of available therapies used for the management of pouchitis. The mainstay of treatment for acute pouchitis remains antibiotics, but newer therapeutics have also shown promise in the treatment of chronic pouchitis. Common lifestyle considerations that may play a role in pouchitis are also reviewed.

Background: Ustekinumab has been recently approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). The registry trials for ustekinumab in UC demonstrated efficacy and safety, but data on real-world outcomes are limited. We describe the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in patients with UC from 2 US tertiary inflammatory bowel disease centers. Methods: Patients with moderately to severely active UC treated with ustekinumab at NYU Langone Health (New York, New York) and University of Chicago Medical Center (Chicago, Illinois) between January 2016 and March 2020 were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was clinical remission at 3 and 12 months, defined as a partial Mayo score of ≤2, with a combined rectal bleeding and stool frequency subscore of ≤1. Results: Sixty-six UC patients were included. Ninety-two percent of patients had prior exposure to biologics or tofacitinib. Forty-three percent and 45% of patients achieved clinical remission by 3 and 12 months, respectively. Anti-TNF nonresponse and endoscopic Mayo score of 3 were negative predictors of clinical remission. Thirty-three percent of those followed for a year achieved concurrent endoscopic and histologic healing, which was significantly associated with lower partial Mayo score (P < 0.01) and lower stool frequency (P = 0.02). Serious adverse events occurred in 4 (6%) patients (3 UC exacerbations, 1 vasculitis). Conclusions: In this cohort of mostly biologic-refractory UC patients, treatment with ustekinumab achieved remission in nearly half of them at 12 months, and was associated with an overall favorable safety profile. These results are modestly better than the pivotal trials.