Parenteral Nutrition, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Gut Barrier: An Intricate Plot.

Malnutrition poses a critical challenge in inflammatory bowel disease, with the potential to detrimentally impact medical treatment, surgical outcomes, and general well-being. Parenteral nutrition is crucial in certain clinical scenarios, such as with patients suffering from short bowel syndrome, intestinal insufficiency, high-yielding gastrointestinal fistula, or complete small bowel obstruction, to effectively manage malnutrition. Nevertheless, research over the years has attempted to define the potential effects of parenteral nutrition on the intestinal barrier and the composition of the gut microbiota. In this narrative review, we have gathered and analyzed findings from both preclinical and clinical studies on this topic. Based on existing evidence, there is a clear correlation between short- and long-term parenteral nutrition and negative effects on the intestinal system. These include mucosal atrophic damage and immunological and neuroendocrine dysregulation, as well as alterations in gut barrier permeability and microbiota composition. However, the mechanistic role of these changes in inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. Therefore, further research is necessary to effectively address the numerous gaps and unanswered questions pertaining to these issues.

Clinical use of biologics for Crohn's disease in adults: lessons learned from real-world studies.

INTRODUCTION: The therapeutic armamentarium for managing Crohn's disease (CD) has expanded significantly in recent decades. Several biologics with three different mechanisms of action [anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, anti-integrin α4ß7, and anti-IL 12/23] are currently available to manage CD. AREA COVERED: This narrative review aims to summarize the most significant efficacy and safety data on the use of infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) for the treatment of CD obtained from studies conducted in the real world (RW), compared to the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). EXPERT OPINION: RW studies reported that biologic agents included in this analysis have higher remission rates and lower adverse event rates than findings from RCTs for treating patients with CD. All biological agents have proven effective and safe in RW studies, even when using biosimilars or switching to subcutaneous administration of the molecules for which they are available. Finally, anti-TNF-α agents, particularly IFX, have a higher rate of adverse events (AEs) than VDZ and UST. Therefore, patients at higher risk of AEs may benefit from other biologics than anti-TNF-α. However, further long-term RW studies are needed to confirm these findings.