Using Diet to Treat Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy of various dietary interventions for induction of clinical remission in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and provide healthcare providers with a practical reference for recommending suitable diets for managing patients with IBD. METHODS: PubMed, Medline(R), and Cochrane were searched from inception up to February 17, 2023 to identify all studies reporting information on using diet to treat IBD. Studies investigating the role of dietary interventions on adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of active IBD for improvement or remission of IBD symptoms were rigorously considered. Sample meal plans, with a list of included and excluded foods, were also generated in order to provide clinicians with practical tools for advising patients on dietary intake. RESULTS: Eleven included studies provided data on 10 distinct diets: autoimmune protocol diet, high fiber diet, 4-SURE diet, highly restricted diet, McMaster elimination diet for Crohn's disease, specific carbohydrate diet, Mediterranean diet, Crohn's disease exclusion diet, individualized elimination diet, and the food-specific IgG4-guided exclusion diet. A total of 9 studies provided data on clinical remission. Many of these diets share common elements, such as an initial elimination phase with subsequent reintroduction of dietary components, inclusion of whole foods, and exclusion of highly or ultra-processed foods. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is limited evidence to support the use of specific diets to treat adult patients with mildly to moderately active IBD. Larger, randomized studies with standardized methodologies and outcome measures, rigorous adherence assessment, and an emphasis on endoscopic assessment outcome measures are required to validate most diets that have been studied for IBD. The included sample diet plans and dietary recommendations may prove helpful in the interim as part of a holistic strategy to manage patients with IBD.

Predictors of histologic response to mepolizumab in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, allergic disease of the esophagus. Current treatment options are limited. One experimental therapy is antibodies against interleukin-5 (IL-5). However, it is unknown why some patients respond to anti-IL-5 treatment whereas others do not. We sought to delineate predictors of histologic response to anti-IL-5 therapy in pediatric EoE. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a multicenter, double-blind clinical trial (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00358449) evaluated mepolizumab for the treatment of EoE in pediatric patients. Predictors were assessed for their association with a histologic response at week 12 of treatment. A histologic response was defined as either <15 eosinophils per hpf or a reduction in peak eosinophil counts by ≥50%. Predictors on univariate analysis with P < 0.10 were included in multivariate logistic regression models. Statistical significance for multivariate comparisons was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Patients with a higher BMI were more likely to attain histologic response at week 12, defined as <15 eosinophils per hpf [aOR, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.60; P = 0.008]. Higher BMI (aOR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.06-2.74; P = 0.029) and signs of exudate plaques on endoscopy (aOR, 18.30; 95% CI, 2.11-158.53; P = 0.008) were significant predictors of histologic response at week 12 where a histologic response was defined as a reduction in peak eosinophil counts by ≥50. CONCLUSION: Higher BMI and signs of exudative plaques on endoscopy may be predictors of histologic response in pediatric EoE patients treated with antibodies against IL-5. Further studies are needed to validate our findings.

Defining oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer and clinically significant outcomes: Implications on clinical trials?

PURPOSE: With the current movement toward treating oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (OMPC), we design a study with the objective of gathering opinions regarding what would be considered a clinically significant benefit from such treatments. METHODS: Data was collected from physicians of the Society of Urologic Oncology using a self-administered questionnaire using SurveyMonkey. The questionnaire was designed to obtain characteristics on clinical practice of the respondents, definitions used for OMPC and also what would be considered a clinically significant benefit according to the respondents. We present a descriptive analysis of the responses obtained. RESULTS: We obtained 119 responses (response rate of 12.6%) after sending the questionnaire twice with one month apart. Most of them being staff/faculty (89%) practicing in the United States of America (84.87%). Most of the responders referred that a significant proportion of their practice comes from PC patients. Most defined OMPC <3 bone/lymph node metastasis seen with conventional imaging, only 26.9% of the responders used positron emission tomography. Regarding the clinical benefit of metastasis-oriented treatment, a curing rate >10% or an increase in 1 year of androgen deprivation therapy-free survival would make the treatment worthwhile. We present examples of sample size calculations for future clinical trials using these parameters as an expected "clinically-significant" benefit. CONCLUSION: This study shows that most clinicians still support the use of conventional imaging to define OMPC. Our findings show that a curing rate of a minimum of 11% and an androgen deprivation therapy-free survival at 1 year are considered clinically significant and this should be used for estimating the sample size in future clinical trials.