Endoscopic Disease Activity and Biologic Therapy Are Independent Predictors of Suboptimal Bowel Preparation in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimal bowel preparation (BP) is critical for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Comorbidities and patient-related factors have been associated with suboptimal BP (SOBP) in the general population. We sought to identify disease-specific characteristics that may impact the quality of BP in patients with IBD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult IBD patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopies between January 2014 and September 2020 at a large academic medical center. Quality of BP was documented using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) or the Aronchick scale and dichotomized into "suboptimal" (BBPS 0-5 or Aronchick "fair," "poor," unsatisfactory") and "optimal" (BBPS 6-9 or Aronchick "excellent," "good"). IBD-specific and other factors associated with SOBP were evaluated using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Among a total of 395 IBD patients [54% males, mean age 40 years, 63% with Crohn's disease (CD), 35% with ulcerative colitis (UC)], 24.8% had SOBP. On multivariable analysis, moderate-to-severe endoscopic disease vs mild or inactive disease was associated with a higher odds of SOBP [adjusted OR 2.7(95% CI 1.52-4.94)], whereas baseline biologic use was associated with a lower odds of SOBP [aOR 0.24(0.09-0.65)] among the overall IBD cohort. Additionally, age > 65 years [aOR 2.99(1.19-7.54)] and single-dose vs split-dose BP [aOR 2.37(1.43-3.95)] were predictors of SOBP. In the subgroup analysis by IBD type, moderate-to-severe endoscopic disease predicted SOBP among both CD and UC cohorts. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic disease activity was predictive of SOBP, and biologic therapy was protective against SOBP among IBD patients.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Cannabis: A Practical Approach for Clinicians.

Although still not approved at the federal level for medical or adult recreational use, cannabis has been approved in the United States (USA) by individual states for both of these purposes. A total of 15 states now regulate cannabis for adult use and 36 states for medical use. In more recent years, cannabis has gained popularity for the treatment of chronic conditions, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being one of them. However, the exact role of cannabis in the treatment of IBD remains uncertain. While cannabis may help in some instances with symptom management, it has not been proven to help with inflammation or to fundamentally correct underlying disease processes. Additionally, along with the perceived symptom benefits of cannabis come concerning issues like dosing inconsistencies, dependence, and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. In this review article, we explore the nuanced relationship between cannabis and the treatment of IBD by summarizing the current research. We also use clinical vignettes to discuss the more practical considerations surrounding its use.

The Role of Robotic Path Assistance and Weight Support in Facilitating 3D Movements in Individuals With Poststroke Hemiparesis.

Background. High-intensity repetitive training is challenging to provide poststroke. Robotic approaches can facilitate such training by unweighting the limb and/or by improving trajectory control, but the extent to which these types of assistance are necessary is not known. Objective. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which robotic path assistance and/or weight support facilitate repetitive 3D movements in high functioning and low functioning subjects with poststroke arm motor impairment relative to healthy controls. Methods. Seven healthy controls and 18 subjects with chronic poststroke right-sided hemiparesis performed 300 repetitions of a 3D circle-drawing task using a 3D Cable-driven Arm Exoskeleton (CAREX) robot. Subjects performed 100 repetitions each with path assistance alone, weight support alone, and path assistance plus weight support in a random order over a single session. Kinematic data from the task were used to compute the normalized error and speed as well as the speed-error relationship. Results. Low functioning stroke subjects (Fugl-Meyer Scale score = 16.6 ± 6.5) showed the lowest error with path assistance plus weight support, whereas high functioning stroke subjects (Fugl-Meyer Scale score = 59.6 ± 6.8) moved faster with path assistance alone. When both speed and error were considered together, low functioning subjects significantly reduced their error and increased their speed but showed no difference across the robotic conditions. Conclusions. Robotic assistance can facilitate repetitive task performance in individuals with severe arm motor impairment, but path assistance provides little advantage over weight support alone. Future studies focusing on antigravity arm movement control are warranted poststroke.