Ultra-processed foods and food additives in gut health and disease.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and food additives have become ubiquitous components of the modern human diet. There is increasing evidence of an association between diets rich in UPFs and gut disease, including inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer and irritable bowel syndrome. Food additives are added to many UPFs and have themselves been shown to affect gut health. For example, evidence shows that some emulsifiers, sweeteners, colours, and microparticles and nanoparticles have effects on a range of outcomes, including the gut microbiome, intestinal permeability and intestinal inflammation. Broadly speaking, evidence for the effect of UPFs on gut disease comes from observational epidemiological studies, whereas, by contrast, evidence for the effect of food additives comes largely from preclinical studies conducted in vitro or in animal models. Fewer studies have investigated the effect of UPFs or food additives on gut health and disease in human intervention studies. Hence, the aim of this article is to critically review the evidence for the effects of UPF and food additives on gut health and disease and to discuss the clinical application of these findings.

Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab.

Background: Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4ß7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting. Methods: Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period. Results: Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001). Conclusion: Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.

Impact of the coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the provision of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) antenatal care and outcomes of pregnancies in women with IBD.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on pregnant inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is currently unknown. Reconfiguration of services during the pandemic may negatively affect medical and obstetric care. We aimed to examine the impacts on IBD antenatal care and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective data were recorded in consecutive patients attending for IBD antenatal care including outpatient appointments, infusion unit visits and advice line encounters. RESULTS: We included 244 pregnant women with IBD, of which 75 (30.7%) were on biologics in whom the treatment was stopped in 29.3% at a median 28 weeks gestation. In addition, 9% of patients were on corticosteroids and 21.5% continued on thiopurines. The care provided during 460 patient encounters was not affected by the pandemic in 94.1% but 68.2% were performed via telephone (compared with 3% prepandemic practice; p<0.0001). One-hundred-ten women delivered 111 alive babies (mean 38.2 weeks gestation, mean birth weight 3324 g) with 12 (11.0%) giving birth before week 37. Birth occurred by vaginal delivery in 72 (56.4%) and by caesarean section in 48 (43.6%) cases. Thirty-three were elective (12 for IBD indications) and 15 emergency caesarean sections. Breast feeding rates were low (38.6%). Among 244 pregnant women with IBD, 1 suspected COVID-19 infection was recorded. CONCLUSION: IBD antenatal care adjustments during the COVID-19 pandemic have not negatively affected patient care. Despite high levels of immunosuppression, only a single COVID-19 infection occurred. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were infrequent.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorder of the oesophagus, characterized by symptoms of dysphagia or food bolus obstruction. Diagnosis is supported by typical histological findings. This article covers pertinent aspects of the disease, pathogenic explanations and treatment options.

Delayed diagnosis of lymphogranuloma venereum-associated colitis in a man first suspected to have rectal cancer.

Lymphogranuloma venereum-associated colitis is a diagnosis that should not be missed. The following case represents the importance of a thorough history, including the importance of the sexual history to prevent the misdiagnosis of these patients.

The Role of Vitamin D in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Vitamin D is known to be vital in maintaining bone health, mineralisation and for fracture prevention. It has also been implicated in a number of autoimmune diseases and has therefore been studied for its potential role in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). This review looks at the current literature on the role of vitamin D and its potential role as an immunomodulator, disease modifier and bone health in IBD patients. There is substantial supporting evidence of an important role from epidemiological, genetic and immunological studies, but there is also conflicting evidence and nothing proving to be definitive from clinical studies. There are also a number of confounders with IBD patients, as their lifestyles and medications may affect vitamin D levels. Murine studies have added vast amounts to our knowledge of vitamin D and its antimicrobial role, as well as its effect on immune cell proliferation other inflammatory molecules, such as Tumour Necrosis Factor-α (TNFα). It is clear that larger trials investigating the effects of oral supplementation of vitamin D in IBD patients are necessary.